Catching up on lost time – the Ancestral Health Symposium, food reward, palatability, insulin signaling and carbohydrates, kettles, pots and other odds and ends (with some philosophy of science as a special added attraction). Part I.

I’m going to start this long-overdue series of posts with a bit of a shaggy dog story, a lengthy preamble (“amble” perhaps being the operative word) before I get to the meatier issues.

One of my supporters in mainstream medical research is Allan Sniderman, a professor of cardiology and medicine at McGill University in Montreal. Since the mid-1980s, Sniderman has been arguing that Apo-B  (the protein component of low and very low density lipoproteins) is a far better predictor of heart disease, which it surely is, than the cholesterol that happens to be contained in these lipoproteins. He’s also a co-discoverer of the hormone ASP  — acylation stimulating protein — which plays a role, however controversial, in fat storage. Sniderman read Good Calories, Bad Calories shortly after it was published in September 2007 and then invited me up to lecture at McGill. He later described his feelings about GC,BC this way:

I had spent some years studying adipose tissue metabolism but it is fair to say I learned more from [Taubes’s] book than I had from my experiments. He restored a sense of how our ideas about obesity and vascular disease had developed and how a number of them had gone off the track. I did not agree with everything he wrote but I did learn a huge amount and much of what I learned is now core to my thinking about the relations of obesity and metabolic disease.

In May 2008, I decided to take a more proactive approach to motivating obesity researchers to test the critical arguments in GC,BC.  Step one was to induce them to read the book, or at least get the arguments on their radar screen. One way to do that, I figured, was to give seminars at institutions that had the requisite capabilities, expertise and experience to do the experiments. I had been lecturing at medical schools and in nutrition departments and even the National Institutes of Health – twice by that time, and once since – but other than the NIH, which had a new metabolic ward facility, none of these institutions had the resources necessary to do the experiments. (And the NIH people told me that they would be happy to do the experiments, if I raised the money from outside sources, something I am working on at the moment.)

One institution that did was the Pennington Biomedical Research Institute in Baton Rouge Louisiana. The PBRC is probably the most influential academic obesity research center in the U.S. if not the world. It has a large metabolic ward facility that can house volunteers for the requisite weeks to months, and it has the equipment to measure body composition, energy expenditure, substrate oxidation, and anything else I could imagine being useful. Its director is Claude Bouchard, who like Sniderman, spent his research career in Quebec – in Bouchard’s case, at Laval University. I guessed that Sniderman probably knew him well, which he did, and so I asked him to put a word in for me, which he did. Just a few days later I received an e-mail from Bouchard. “I had a nice conversation recently with Allan Sniderman,” Bouchard wrote, “who suggested that we should have you at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center for a seminar and perhaps a series of meetings with our scientists interested in obesity, diabetes and metabolism.”

I gave the seminar in January 2009 (after having it postponed once by Hurricane Gustav) and it led to two moments that captured perfectly the challenge of what I’ve been trying to accomplish for the last four years. I’ll discuss the first in this post, and the second will come at the end of this series, when I get around to discussing experimental tests of the competing hypotheses.

The PBRC auditorium was packed — standing-room-only — and I presented a slightly more technical version of the lecture I’ve given frequently – “Why We Get Fat: Adiposity 101 and the Alternative Hypothesis of Obesity.” (For those, who haven’t seen it, you can find a recent version here, from last April at the Ohio State University Medical Center.)

I argued in the lecture that obesity research had made little to no progress in the years since the Second World War (and for anyone who thinks progress has been made see “obesity epidemicas a counter-argument) and the reason is because the researchers had been laboring under the wrong paradigm. And by paradigm, I didn’t (and don’t) mean how the word is often bastardized nowadays to imply virtually any shift in thinking or technology, no matter how minor. I meant what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn defined as “scientific achievements that… provide model problems and solutions for a community of researchers.” By a paradigm shift, Kuhn meant, for example, the shift from Ptolemaic astronomy, in which the sun circles the Earth, to Copernican astronomy, in which the opposite happens, not the replacement, say, of traditional standard-definition televisions with HD.

At the PBRC, as in my books, I argued that obesity researchers had come to universally conceive of obesity as a disorder of energy balance – we get fat because we consume more calories than we expend — when they should have been thinking of it as a disorder of excess fat accumulation as the pre-WW2 Europeans had come to do. Not an issue of overeating or calories in being greater than calories out, but one of how the calories were partitioned in the body – stored as fat or muscle, oxidized for fuel, etc.

If the post-WW2 generation of researchers had simply defined obesity as a disorder of excess fat accumulation rather than one of energy balance, I argued, they would have naturally asked the question, what hormones and enzymes and other factors regulate fat accumulation. And that’s what they would have and should have been studying for the past sixty years. But, with precious few exceptions, that’s precisely what they have not been doing.

Instead, they’ve focused on what factors control eating behavior and physical activity, and they’ve considered the actual regulation of the fat tissue and fatty acid metabolism irrelevant.  (As I describe in GC,BC, a handful of influential researchers in the 1970s worked diligently to achieve this state of affairs, removing any discussion of adipose tissue regulation from discussions of obesity itself, largely because they didn’t like the implications.) At the end of my lecture, I proposed the experiment that I thought the PBRC researchers could do, and I explained why this experiment would serve the critical purpose of differentiating between the two paradigms, and why it was precisely the type of experiment they should be doing. (And this is what we’ll discuss at the end of this series of posts, along with iconic moment number two.)

Now for the punch line to my shaggy dog story – i.e. iconic moment number one. In the Q&A session following my hour-long presentation, a member of the PBRC faculty, a distinguished-looking gentleman who I’d guess was in his mid to late sixties, raised his hand and said, “Mr. Taubes, is it fair to say that one subtext of your talk is that you think we are all idiots?”

Is it fair to say that I think they are all idiots? A surprisingly good question.

Certainly one subtext of my talk (and my work) is that a journalist is getting  it right and sixty-odd years of nutritionists and obesity researchers got it wrong (with maybe a half dozen exceptions who were marginalized for their beliefs.)  So, yes, it was fair to say that I think a large body of otherwise very smart people, Ph.D.s and M.D.s all, were operating with suboptimal intelligence. Certainly in a pursuit — science — in which the one goal is to get the right answer, getting the wrong answer on such a huge and tragic scale borders on inexcusable.

That isn’t, of course, how I responded at the moment. I smiled, and I said, no, what I believed was that researchers of his generation – those who would have started their careers in the 1970s – had inherited a paradigm of obesity from the generation that preceded them. And this paradigm seemed so obvious (we get fat because we take in more calories than we expend) that they never thought to question it. Indeed, I didn’t think to question it myself until 2003 or 2004 when my research took me to the pre-WW2 European ideas about obesity (for which I owe the late Alfred Pennington – no relationship to the Pennington of the PBRC – for showing me the way) and to researchers in the U.S. who were studying fat accumulation in animals for reasons other than necessarily understanding human obesity.

But this was still just a kind way of saying that researchers of this fellow’s generation, and all those who have followed had simply missed the point. They hadn’t done their job. They should have questioned the obvious, even if it was obvious. And had they done so, all the bad science that followed might never have happened, and maybe we wouldn’t be having an obesity epidemic and a diabetes epidemic along with it.

So why didn’t they do it themselves?

Well, one obvious reason is maybe it’s wrong. They thought about it, looked into it, rejected it. That’s what Stephan Guyenet recently argued on his Whole Health Source blog, and we’ll address that directly later on this series of posts — part III, as it looks at the moment.  (It was Stephan’s post, not surprisingly, that finally motivated me to find the time to blog again and put aside, momentarily, my other obligations — raising a family, participating in my marriage, earning a living, and trying to influence the 99 percent or so of the medical and public health establishments that aren’t reading any of these blogs. For that, I’m occasionally grateful.)

Assuming for the moment that it’s not wrong – that I’m not wrong or at least not completely wrong – the other obvious explanation is that they didn’t do it because they were living inside the energy balance paradigm and couldn’t see beyond it. Everything they did, all their conversations, every research question they asked and even the funding they received to answer those questions, their ability to move up in the hierarchy of their field, to succeed, in a word – to become an assistant professor and then a professor, to edit journals, and serve on prestigious committees, to thrive, support a family, pay their lab techs, etc.  – all existed within the same belief system. And so they had little to no reason to see outside it and little motivation to overturn it. Seeing a reason to challenge the existing paradigm was not only exceedingly difficult from within the paradigm, but following through on this challenge could seriously jeopardize an individual’s ability to succeed — even to be taken seriously from day to day.

This is why, as Kuhn explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, his seminal thesis on paradigm shifts, the people who invariably do manage to shift scientific paradigms are “either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change… for obviously these are the men [or women, of course] who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.”

So when a shift does happen, it’s almost invariably the case that an outsider or a newcomer, at least, is going to be the one who pulls it off. This is one thing that makes this endeavor of figuring out who’s right or what’s right such a tricky one. Insiders are highly unlikely to shift a paradigm and history tells us they won’t do it. And if outsiders or newcomers take on the task, they not only suffer from the charge that they lack credentials and so credibility, but their work de facto implies that they know something that the insiders don’t – hence, the idiocy implication.

This is why a common and understandable response to any challenge to the existing paradigm – to the conventional wisdom, in effect – from an outsider is this: “who the hell are you (or am I) to be questioning us? You’re not a member of the priesthood. Not an upper wizard of the stratosphere. You haven’t trained in the field. You haven’t proven yourself. You haven’t done, in effect, what we have done; you haven’t learned what we have learned. You didn’t have the necessary apprenticeship in the relevant arts. Bug off!” (Although, this is by no means a universal response, as this paper – “Obesity and Energy Balance – Is the Tail Wagging the Dog?” — published in July in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition demonstrates, taking my ideas and those of Robert Lustig’s and exploring the implications.)

This knee-jerk rejection is indeed a valid response, because most outsiders who challenge the conventional wisdom are dead wrong. Some huge majority are quacks – assuredly greater than 99 percent and we can probably add a few more 9s to this percentage and still be on the safe side.

When I wrote for Discover magazine in the 1980s, one of my beats was high energy particle physics, which was also the subject of my first book. Every time I wrote a story on the new theory or elementary particle de jour, I would receive letters written in crayon (implying, as it was explained to me at the time, that the letters had been written by prison inmates who weren’t allowed to use sharp objects like pencils and pens for the purpose). These letters would typically explain why Einstein or Dirac or the latest generation of theoretical physicists had been wrong, and they would propose a new theory of quantum mechanics or relativity or just a theory of everything – known in the jargon as a T.O.E. — that the authors invariably had absolute confidence was correct. And, for all I know, one or more of these incarcerated amateur physicists might have been dead on. Maybe they had created a working theory of everything, but into the waste paper basket these letters went. The odds against them being right were astronomical and time is short. And the odds wouldn’t have been significantly better had the letters been written by fellow journalists or even science journalists using IBM Selectric typewriters or even the few desktop computers that had begun slipping into the offices of the era.

A good rule of thumb is that outsiders challenging establishment science are invariably wrong. And we don’t want our experts and authorities wasting their time vetting every last crackpot theory that arrives over the transom.  Crayon or not. We have better uses for their time.

And here’s the challenge to both the scientist working in the field and the lay observer following along: how do we tell the difference between the one in a million times, say, that an outsider comes along and gets it right, and the other 999,999 quack-driven attempts? The numbers alone tell us that the best idea is always to bet against the outsider, that we’re always best served by ignoring him or her and getting back to science as usual (what Kuhn called “normal science”). The odds are enormously in our favor if we do so. But, still, when a paradigm is shifted, it’s going to be an outsider who does it, so keeping an open mind is a reasonably good idea, particularly when the evidence suggests such a shift is in order (see aforementioned obesity epidemic).

This leads to a second major problem with making these assessments – who’s right or what’s right. As Kuhn explained, shifting a paradigm includes not just providing a solution to the outstanding problems in the field, but a rethinking of the questions that are asked, the observations that are considered and how those observations are interpreted, and even the technologies that are used to answer the questions. In fact, often the problems that the new paradigm solves, the questions it answers, are not the problems and the questions that practitioners living in the old paradigm would have recognized as useful.

“Paradigms provide scientists not only with a map but also with some of the direction essential for map-making,” wrote Kuhn. “In learning a paradigm the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture. Therefore, when paradigms change, there are usually significant shifts in the criteria determining the legitimacy both of problems and of proposed solutions.”

As a result, Kuhn said, researchers on different sides of conflicting paradigms can barely discuss their differences in any meaningful way: “They will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent.”

So this can be considered a warning. I’m about to launch into a discussion of two hypotheses of obesity that exist in competing paradigms – the food reward/palatability hypothesis that Stephan Guyenet has revived, which lives firmly within the energy balance paradigm (calories-in>calories-out) and the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis, which I’ve been pushing and which lives in the fat accumulation disorder/fuel partitioning paradigm.

In explaining my problems with food reward and palatability as a viable hypothesis of obesity, I’m going to repeat many of the arguments I made in my books for why the energy balance paradigm itself seems to be such a failure. (Not all of them because life is short, but many.) And these, of course, will also provide the rationale for why something like the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is necessary. It doesn’t imply that the carbohydrate/insulin hypothesis is right, but that something very much like it almost assuredly is. I’ll also explain why I find many of the observations and some of the experiments used to support the hypothesis meaningless and inconsequential. I hope, as I did with my books, to create what Kuhn called a “playable game.”

But here’s another catch: This map-making exercise can be perceived as a justification for cherry-picking of the data, which, in a way, it is. But I’m arguing that such selective interpretation of the data is a fundamental requirement to make progress in any field of science, and particularly one as off the rails as that of obesity and nutrition. It is inherent to the process that Kuhn described as “map-making,” to taking a non-playable game – a dysfunctional paradigm – and making it playable.

This was a point the physicist Richard Feynman made indirectly back in 1965 in The Character of Physical Law, the book version of a series of lectures he gave the year before at Cornell University. (The lectures themselves are available on line and are worth viewing for many reasons, one of which is the experience of listening to one of the great thinkers of the 20th century express himself in a thick New Yawk/Queens accent.) Feynman was talking about how physicists find a new law of nature, and this is what he said:

In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

But then he added the caveat:

It is true that one has to check a little to make sure that it is wrong, because whoever did the experiment may have reported incorrectly, or there may have been some feature in the experiment that was not noticed, some dirt or something; or the man who computed the consequences, even though it may have been the one who made the guesses, could have made some mistake in the analysis. These are obvious remarks, so when I say if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong, I mean after the experiment has been checked, the calculations have been checked, and the thing has been rubbed back and forth a few times to make sure that the consequences are logical consequences from the guess, and that in fact it disagrees with a very carefully checked experiment.

And this is the point. Experimental results and observations have to be rubbed back and forth a few times to see if the interpretations that first come to mind are really justified, and whether the experiment, for that fact, is a “very carefully checked” experiment. And what we want to know is whether the result really disagrees or agrees with the predictions. Or is something else going on? Not just dirt in the equipment, but maybe another interpretation entirely – an alternative hypothesis? What was missed in the interpretation? Artifacts in the experimental apparatus? Confounding factors that might explain the observational evidence?

Asking these questions, indeed, leads to all kinds of cherry picking of the data, what a Scottish physician once described to me as “Bing Crosby Epidemiology” – i.e., accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative. And the paradigm in which we live, not surprisingly, will determine how we define positive and negative and so what we accentuate and what we eliminate. Depending on our paradigm or our preferred hypotheses, we’ll put more or less effort into the rubbing back and forth process based on whether the experimental results agree with our notions or don’t.

As I’ve said before in various venues, at one time in the writing of Good Calories, Bad Calories I had a 400,000 word unfinished draft. I couldn’t complete it because it was obviously far too long already  – twice as long as it should be — and yet I had important chapters yet to write. I solved the problem by giving it to my editor to read with the suggestion that maybe we could make it two books. He read it in its entirety (one of many acts of editorship that earned my undying devotion) and said, no, one book. We proceeded to cut the document by more than half, so I could then write the chapters that still had to be written and end up with a book that was under 200,000 words (bibliography and endnotes, not included).

Much of what was removed was the rubbing back and forth. I would present an observation – high levels of insulin, for instance, in obese subjects first observed in the early 1960s – and then I would explain how it was interpreted to support the conventional wisdom (we get fat because we overeat and being fat then causes insulin resistance and so increases insulin levels) and why that wasn’t necessarily the correct interpretation and how the same observation supported alternative hypotheses as well. And I would go back and forth with arguments and counterarguments.

My editor pointed out that this wasn’t necessary; that my job was to present my interpretation of the evidence and if someone wanted to challenge it later, so be it. I could provide the arguments and counterarguments, the rubbing back and forth, then.

What I always found amusing once the book was published (okay, amusing in an irritating way) were the critics who would first complain that GC,BC was too long – I go “on and on about experiments old and new,” as Gina Kolata put it in the New York Times – and then upbraid me for leaving something out that they considered important.  And so when Kolata pointed out that “definitive” experiments by Leibel and Hirsch should have been in my book because they refuted my arguments – thus accusing me, in effect, of the supposedly heinous crime of cherry picking — I was left to point out in a letter to the editor that the experiment (no “s” at the end, as Kolata had it) was poorly done, didn’t address the salient issues, that Kolata got many of her facts wrong, and that her use of the word “definitive” left much to be desired and that “ambiguous” was a far more accurate description.

So Kolata read the Leibel/Hirsch experiment in a way that supported her beliefs and didn’t bother to rub them back and forth. (She had just published a book a few months earlier that adhered closely to the conventional wisdom.) And I did, because of the implication that the experiment refuted my arguments. I had to see if it did indeed do what Kolata claimed and concluded (not surprisingly, considering my bias) that it didn’t. Or at least that it couldn’t be used, as she had used it, to refute my arguments.

This selective interpretation of the evidence is human nature, as Francis Bacon pointed out almost 400 years ago. But it’s a necessary part of science. For a paradigm to shift, a significant proportion of experimental results will have to be reinterpreted – meaning the interpretation in the new paradigm and the significance is going to be different than it had been under the old. Some significant portion of experiment results will be deemed irrelevant, on the basis that they don’t shed meaningful light on the subject. And, of course, how meaningful is defined is dependent on the paradigm.

So we’re back to the tricky business of assessing who or what is right in such a situation – in determining where to place our bets?

The ultimate determination should indeed be based on data, but not just any data or any experiment that seems relevant. A controversy would not exist if it were not possible for most experimental results and most observations to be consistent with both hypotheses, both paradigms. The key to making progress is to identify observations in nature or generate them by experiment that are consistent with the predictions of only one of the competing paradigms or hypotheses, not both — or not all, if there are more than two. (Thus invariably prompting proponents of the unsuccessful paradigms/hypotheses to evoke what philosophers and historians of science would call “epicycles to rationalize away the negative evidence.)  The problem with the Hirsch/Leibel experiments, as I pointed out in my letter to the Times, is that the results were consistent with both hypotheses, and so the solution was not to conclude on the basis of a popularity contest which was right, but to advocate for better experiments.

What we ultimately want, as Feynman suggested, is an experiment or an observation that can unambiguously  — i.e., rubbing back and forth gets us as close to nowhere as we can get — differentiate between hypotheses or paradigms. The competing hypotheses/paradigms predict different results and only one of the predictions holds up. Meaningful experimental results or meaningful observations are those that refute one hypothesis but not the other. Anything less doesn’t help us and doesn’t answer the question of what or who is right. So a constant reminder in this business is to ask ourselves whether the observations or experimental results we’re discussing serve this purpose: can they differentiate between the two hypotheses? If they can’t, let’s move on and find (or fund) ones that can.

In the next post, I’ll begin by defining the questions I think have to be answered by any viable hypothesis of obesity, and how this is relevant to the salient issue of food reward and palatability vs. insulin signaling and carbohydrates. And these questions will speak directly to observations and experiments that I believe can be used to establish the validity of one (mine, of course) and not the other. It may take me awhile to finish the series, as the aforesaid obligations are bound to crash back in, so please bear with me and stay tuned.

Speak Your Mind

*

Comments

  1. Robin Luethe says:

    Steve has posited palatability as a significant factor in obesity. He has emphasized it is not the only one.

    A second point, eating low carb, generally less than 50 grams a day, and diabetic, I gain weight.

    • Joe Jong says:

       eat zero carbs for 3-4 days than have a carb up day.

      this sould work for you

    • Robin,Doesn’t the fact that changing your carb level results in weight change disprove the calories in / calories out theory?

    • Gary has posited palatability is not a significant factor in obesity. He has emphasized it is not one.

      A second point, if you’re obese don’t eat low carb. If you’re really skinny than maybe you should.

      • Anonymous says:

        I’m obese and low carb is the only way I can eat and lose weight.  Eating high-animal-fat and high carb appears to improve my insulin response (the fat part, not the carb part), but my weight stalls or increases.

        Someone who’s eating low carb and low fat and high protein probably will gain fat.  Your body can only use so much protein and the rest will go to glucose and hence to fat storage.  People get tripped up a lot by this.  Not saying it’s Robin’s issue but it might be.

  2. Mark Siegrist says:

    Gary – I read WWGF in January. I’ve since lost almost 60 pounds without hunger. Your book changed my life. I know you must frustrated in your pursuit of trying to get these folks to re-think their approach. Just know that you have positively impacted (and likely extended) the lives of many people like myself.

    mark

  3. So, it’s not that some of us are biased and some aren’t.  It’s just that if an experiment can be interpreted to support both biases, then it’s not very useful.  That’s refreshing to hear someone say!

    Robin, why don’t we wait to hear what Taubes has to say about the actual issue before arguing about it?

  4. tess says:

    i see virtues in both philosophies.  you can’t get around the “metabolic advantage” that Dr. Atkins originally described, AND i know from experience that a less brain-chemical-manipulating, “rewarding” diet is also effective in effortless weight loss.  most of us blog-readers care less about the mechanism, and a great deal more about what we can actually do, painlessly, to lose weight. 

    Gary does us all a real service in analyzing historical and current science *from an outsider’s point of view*!  the greatest item i took away from GCBC is the BS that’s been foisted on us by those insiders, who in my opinion have betrayed our trust.  who said first that “medicine is not a science but a business”?  boy, ain’t that the truth….

    tess

  5. Anonymous says:

    It seems to me that the insulin and the palatability hypotheses are looking at two different aspects of the development of obesity. Isn’t palatability largely a subjective quality? Guyanet’s hypothesis is a more psychological/behavioral look at obesity, and the insulin hypothesis is more physiological. Perhaps these two ideas intersect at the cephalic phase of insulin response.

    Great to see a new post, and looking forward to more

  6. Anonymous says:

    I have lost over 60 pounds, three different times in my life.  Though I had been on a restricted carb diet prior to reading WWGF it helped me to understand exactly why I was losing weight so much easier on this final last time of sporatic weight loss and gain.

    • Anthony Knox says:

      “Yet I keep coming back to the calorie deficit as an essential reason I lose. I’m eating fewer calories than I’m using, so my body borrows from its fat bank.”
      This is something that I struggled to understand, as well.

      Then one day a light went on:  Reduced appetite is an effect of weight loss in a carbohydrate restricted diet, not the cause.

      Once insulin levels are reduced and energy from stored fat becomes available, the need for calories from the diet is reduced.

  7. Anonymous says:

    As my rocket scientist friend told me when we were in grad school, for most people, “experience” is nothing more than making the same mistakes over and over again.  Laws of Science are infallible, hence “laws.”  People talking about weight gain/loss in terms of energy balance either don’t have formal training in science, fail to understand science, or both; and some of those people work in the field.  It’s understandable that most people confuse cause and effect, since our minds evolved for survival, not truth.  

    • Anonymous says:

      “People talking about weight gain/loss in terms of energy balance either don’t have formal training in science, fail to understand science, or both. . . ”  Careful. In another comment, I quoted Taubes as ascribing to a version of “energy balance.”  Admittedly it’s a nuanced version, one in which the body has to find its own balance. 

      • Anonymous says:

        As long as you exist in this universe, you can be certain energy is always balanced.  Our bodies and the hormones and enzymes that keep it alive will not violate the first law of thermodynamics, or any other scientific law, which are constraints (i.e. boundary conditions) on the system.  For someone to gain mass, you can be certain they consumed more energy than they expended.  For someone to lose mass, you can be certain they expended more energy than they consumed.  However, to attribute causality is committing post hoc fallacy.  No one who understands science should ever make this fundamental mistake.  So, are the obesity researchers “idiots?”  Maybe they were just making the same mistake over and over again.

        Also, since energy and mass are used interchangeably. how does calorie a measure of heat energy relate to mass?  I think a famous smart guy named Einstein had a famous equation about this.

        • phil says:

          I take the claim that the energy in a system is in balance as basically saying that the system is in energy equilibrium: that is, the amount of energy entering the system is equal to the amount leaving the system. On this definition, not all systems achieve “energy balance.” For example, if I lose weight, then the amount of energy leaving me is greater than the amount of energy entering me. The laws of thermodynamics don’t entail that all systems are in “energy balance”; rather, they entail that energy is never created or destroyed.

          Humans naturally try to maintain energy balance with hormones (just like we maintain heat balance, blood salinity balance etc…: we want to keep things the *same* in our bodies in order to continue staying alive). The only way to tip the balance (i.e., to gain or lose weight) is to affect the hormones that control this. Eating more or less in general is not a good strategy, since our mechanisms for maintaining energy balance were “designed” to deal with fluxuations in energy intake–by controlling hunger, palatability and activity levels. I take Taubes to be arguing that there is something about carbs (e.g., insulin response) that tips the balance towards the system achieving equilibrium at a much higher mass than is healthy for humans (or than would be achieved by eating mostly protein and fat).

          Of course, if you tip the system towards losing energy by eating less carbs, then the laws of logic demand that you eat less calories in general. This is not to say that you lost weight because you ate less, however.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Like many people who’ve read and enjoyed your books, especially Why We Get Fat, I’ve been conducting my own personal experiment to confirm the low-carb hypothesis. I’ve confirmed it in a sense, losing 44 pounds in six months (officially verified only this morning at my annual physical exam), about 17% of my starting weight. I say “in a sense” because if asked to explain how and why the diet works, I say it works because I am able to eat far fewer calories per day, for months on end, without getting hungry than on any other diet I’ve tried.  

    To me, this in itself is amazing. It seems counter-intuitive that if I skip the toast with a breakfast of bacon and eggs, I will be able to go longer without eating again than if I ate the toast, too. So obviously calories aren’t all equal in terms of how my body responds to them, or what it does with them. I buy that.

    I also buy that a simple “calories in/ calories out” model does not fit the pattern of my own weight loss (gaining a pound one week and losing two or three the next week, without any apparent change in my intake or activity levels). Yet I keep coming back to the calorie deficit as an essential reason I lose. I’m eating fewer calories than I’m using, so my body borrows from its fat bank. I understand your point that if I were eating more carbs and had more insulin in my system, this borrowing would not occur and I’d feel hungry and be driven to eat more.  Hence, no weight loss. 

    So it isn’t a simple process of calories in/ calories out, but the calorie deficit is still there. It still seems essential to my weight loss. (Essential but not sufficient.)  I guess I could test this by deliberately over-eating — piling on the non-carb calories to see if I continue losing pounds, no matter how much I consume.  

    Maybe I will try that test someday.  But right now, I am eating all I care to eat and yet losing weight, the holy grail of dieting. I give full credit to the low-carb approach; it’s only the theory that I am quibbling about, and only to a degree. 

    Having said this, I look forward to the rest of your posts and will keep an open-mind. Not being a scientist, and having already got what I wanted, I can afford to take a sporting interest.

    • Anthony Knox says:

      “Yet I keep coming back to the calorie deficit as an essential reason I lose. I’m eating fewer calories than I’m using, so my body borrows from its fat bank.”
      This is something I struggled to understand, as well.

      Then one day while re-reading GC,BC a light went on:  Reduced appetite is an effect of weight-loss in a carbohydrate-restricted diet, not the cause.

      When insulin levels are lowered, energy from fat stores becomes available, and the need for calories from diet is smaller.

      • Anonymous says:

        “Reduced appetite is an effect of weight-loss in a carbohydrate-restricted diet, not the cause.” I like how you put that, and I can believe it, but it seems just as logical to say that carb-restriction reduces appetite (i.e., the cravings for yet more carbs) which leads to weight loss. But I do agree completely that weight loss would not happen if high insulin levels were keeping my fat stores locked away. I’d just be very hungry, very tired, or both. 

    • Anonymous says:

      You’re not in calorie deficit.  You’re burning your fat, meaning that energy has just been made available to your lean tissues.  Eating is not the only way to get energy to your cells.  That is exactly what’s wrong with calorie theory.  It does not take fat-burning into account as “calories in.”  It also does not take into account protein going into muscles as “calories out.”

      • Anonymous says:

        Yes, of course fat-burning is a source of energy. I think I did acknowledge that. Indeed, I don’t disagree with anything you say. I’m not sure I disagree with Taubes, either, on the key point that maintaining a healthy weight is a matter of balance. On page 211 of the hard-cover of WWGF, he writes, “By avoiding the fattening carbohydrates, you remove the force that diverts calories into your fat cells. Your body should then find its own balance between energy consumed (appetite and hunger) and energy expended (physical activity and metabolic rate).” He notes that the balance-finding process “could take time, but it should happen without conscious thought.” That fits my experience perfectly. But is “balance” really different from “calories in/ calories out”? To me, it seems like how “calories in/ calories out” is supposed to work, but usually doesn’t because of the over-consumption of carbohydrates (especially in the form of sugar and grain). In other words, our modern diets have often short-circuited the natural balancing of calories in/ calories out. 

        • Anonymous says:

          you can test it. buy a scale, increase your caloric intake without increasing your carbohydrate intake. do this consistently for a few days, weighing yourself every day. if you do not see continuous weight gains throughout this period, you can draw conclusions.

        • If I recall, one of the shortcomings of “Calories in/ Calories out” is that it assumes the intake to be completely voluntary and the output to be fixed.  As a physicist, I used to think that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics seemed to be all one needed to understand weight gain.  Obviously, if weight is increasing, there is a net energy storage.  But what my embarrassingly naive point of view missed was that, as a human and not an engine or a bomb calorimeter, the output energy is variable.  The efficiency of the human engine can vary based on hormonal effects much more complex than simply energy density.  So Calories matter in weight gain in that there is net energy storage, but it is so logically irrelevant that it helps no one.  You can control your energy expenditure little more than you can control your hair growth because it is a multivariate system inside of you that is mostly involuntary.  Consciously lowering caloric intake only causes an uncontrollable lowering of energy expenditure (if your fat is mostly off limits due to the hormonal environment) leading to the lethargy most complain of on caloric restriction.  If you are losing weight, it’s true that it is because your expenditure is above your intake and you are using your stored energy to compensate.  The myth is that you can control this manually by ratcheting calories down.  It’s effective only when your inner hormonal environment allows the adipose tissue to give up its energy, yielding a negative energy balance without the side effects of manual caloric restriction.  Eating a relatively low carb diet, one may be in caloric deficit whilst eating more calories than one on forced restriction simply by priming the system with the right tools.  

          I think a better way to understand the issue is that weight loss occurs in energy deficit, but a diet that mitigates insulin response is one that allows for involuntarily increased energy expenditure and reduced intake, bypassing all of the nasty side effects and diminishing returns of a forced caloric restriction.  

    • Anonymous says:

      “I keep coming back to the calorie deficit as an essential reason I lose.”

      “So
      it isn’t a simple process of calories in/ calories out, but the calorie
      deficit is still there. It still seems essential to my weight loss.”

      Jimamich, I think you need to go back and reread some passages in WWGF.  Gary does not deny that a calorie deficit exists if you are losing weight.  His example using a crowded room is perfect.  Calories in/Calories out as a theory for weight management is like saying a room gets more crowded because more people are entering than are leaving.  Well, everybody knows that.  The question is, what is going on to make that happen?

    • Ron says:

      Just a simple testimony. I was on weight watchers point system and havening difficulty losing weight with my 39 daily “points”. I started carb restriction(about 15 to 20 grams a day) and I found that I was losing weight while eating 80 to 100 “points” a day. Needless to say I quit weight watchers. I have been now tracking my calorie intake daily and I consume between 3,500 to 4,000 calories a day and I have been maintaining my weight perfectly. There is no way I could have maintained eating that many calories on a carb based diet.

  9. Alex Stoakley says:

    With apologies to your ‘ distinguished-looking gentleman who I’d guess was in his mid to late sixties’ his comment reminded me of Clake’s First Law:’When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is
    possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is
    impossible, he is very probably wrong.’ …

  10. Glenn Ammons says:

    I’m curious why you put the food reward theory that Stephan describes in the energy balance paradigm.  After all, Stephan talks about a setpoint that is increased by rewarding foods; it’s not that rewarding food cause people to eat too much and so get fat but that rewarding food raises the setpoint, which causes people to accumulate fat.

    It would be great if you could address why Stephan’s theory is an energy-balance theory in a future installment.

    • Anthony Knox says:

      One of the features of the “energy balance paradigm” is that it posits a cause for overeating that is unrelated to hunger, i.e., in the brain and not the body.

      Food-reward theory appears to do the same thing.

    • Anonymous says:

      I know this is n=1, but you should have seen my diet when I was young and stupid.  And I could put it away.  I was 5’6″, 130-135 pounds (the heavier weight in winter–which, as it turns out, is normal), and I could put away an entire box of Hamburger Helper by myself.  Yes, cooked.  With the burger added.  And not gain an ounce.  I only started in on weight gain when the days got shorter, and as soon as summer rolled around, that five pounds went right back off again.

      My set point didn’t change til my hormones did.  10 pounds gained permanently when I went on the Pill at 21, 50 pounds gained with pregnancy #1, 50 pounds gained with pregnancy #2.  I would sometimes lose weight if I had to walk long distances or go through other kinds of stress but I suspect it was not all fat weight, and I was malnourished and often mentally ill as well as getting “lighter.”

      It doesn’t make sense that food tasting good would raise the set point.  At all.

  11. Scott says:

    While eating breakfast this morning I started to wonder when Gary would post again. Glad to see this post and looking forward to the rest of the series!

  12. Brian Kerley says:

    Write a book on Leptin. :-)

    • Anonymous says:

      Diet Doctor says leptin resistance is triggered by insulin resistance.  And arguing about leptin just makes it about Skinny Person Overeats –> Skinny Person Starts Becoming Obese –> Skinny Person Is No Longer Skinny, all over again.

  13. Glad to see you posting again Gary. This should be an interesting discussion. 

  14. You should be lecturing to graduate students who are hungry to test new ideas.. not the established academics who are unwilling or are afraid to confront their old paradigms!

    Jorge

  15. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, Mr. Taubes.  Your work means a lot to me.

  16. Keep doing what you’re doing Gary. I read Why We Get Fat in March which happened to be at the very same time we were studying the Endocrine system in my A&P class and everything clicked and made perfect sense. I started low carb back in April and I’ve lost 60 pounds. I feel like you saved my life because I was developing metabolic syndrome. The doctor said my insulin levels were two and a half times what they should have been after I had fasted for 12 hours. After reading your book I implemented these principles into my life and my whole world has changed. I can’t thank you enough for your efforts. I’m passing the book around to my friends trying to spread the message. Some like it and some are skeptical still. I’m not going to give up. I’m so grateful for your work. Thanks for getting this message to me.

  17. gnollsdotorg says:

    The motivations behind hunger, including their biological substrates, are reasonably well-defined — and “food reward” is just one of them. Those interested in the bigger picture (as science currently understands it) might enjoy this ongoing series of articles:

    Why Are We Hungry? Part I: What Is Hunger?

    JS

    (Note: I have no horse in the current race.)

  18. gnollsdotorg says:

    The motivations behind hunger, including their biological substrates, are reasonably well-defined — and “food reward” is just one of them. Those interested in the bigger picture (as science currently understands it) might enjoy this ongoing series of articles:

    Why Are We Hungry? Part I: What Is Hunger?

    JS

    (Note: I have no horse in the current race.)

  19. Less Antman says:

    I’m far less interested in seeing who “wins” this debate than in gaining a clearer understanding of the strategies most likely to produce effective weight regulation.  And I’m concerned that Guyenet’s theory is not being described accurately in this initial post, since it certainly is NOT an energy imbalance theory, but a theory of “setpoint” regulation of fat storage.

    Can I make a suggestion?  Gary, write another post that is a short statement of what you believe is Stephan’s theory, and wait for him to confirm your description before proceeding to debunk a point of view he hasn’t even presented.

  20. Less Antman says:

    I’m far less interested in seeing who “wins” this debate than in gaining a clearer understanding of the strategies most likely to produce effective weight regulation.  And I’m concerned that Guyenet’s theory is not being described accurately in this initial post, since it certainly is NOT an energy imbalance theory, but a theory of “setpoint” regulation of fat storage.

    Can I make a suggestion?  Gary, write another post that is a short statement of what you believe is Stephan’s theory, and wait for him to confirm your description before proceeding to debunk a point of view he hasn’t even presented.

  21. Paula says:

    Great post, Gary!  The AHS contretemps has stirred things up; worth it that’s it’s resulted in your as-usual-extremely-enlightening blog post!!!

    WHAT YOU WRITE IS SO TRUE:  “Certainly in a pursuit — science — in which the one goal is to get the right answer, getting the wrong answer on such a huge and tragic scale borders on inexcusable.”

    NOW FOR A BIT OF INTERESTING CONTROVERSY – Guyenet v. Eenfeldt v. Melchior Meijer:

    Guyenet from July 2011 on “How Does Gastric Bypass Surgery Cause Fat Loss?”
      
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-does-gastric-bypass-surgery-cause.html#more
     
    ANDREAS EENFELDT’S RESPONSE (Dr. E is the most famous Swedish proponent of what they call in Sweden “LCHF”):
     
    Wow, that’s a complicated theory. I think there is a much simpler explanation.Gastric bypass results in an enforced low carb diet through the reduced volume that can be eaten, plus the slower digestion of starch resulting from disconnecting the duodenum (and the amylase from the pancreas).Going on a strict low carb diet sometimes makes the symptoms of type 2 diabetes vanish overnight. Just like gastric bypass sometimes does. Coincidence? I think not:http://www.dietdoctor.com/across-the-river-for-water-surgery-for-diabetesOf course, low carb diets have also been proven to give significantly more weight loss than conventional low calorie advice. At least thirteen high quality trials (RCTs) has shown a significant advantage:http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-scienceLuckily there is a smarter and more natural solution to the obesity epidemic than cutting away your stomach or giving up food for “bland liquid from a straw”.
     
    Melchior Meijer said…
    Andreas and Jenny,Gastric bypass immediately restores glucose tolerance in some people. Previously diabetic patients have normal OGGT’s, overnight.http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/2/375.full.pdfThis effect is not seen after carbohydrate restriction, quite the opposite. [! Disagree!  Paula]  I don’t say carb restriction isn’t a smart intervention in diabetes, but it controls the disease, it does not correct it. Something very crucial to glucose metabolism must be going on (or not going on) in the upper intestine and it should be investigated.   July 10, 2011 6:47 AM
     
    MY COMMENT:
     
    I have to say, tho, MM has a VERY GOOD POINT about “Something very crucial to glucose metabolism must be going on…and should be investigated.”   Brag alert:  My nephew Rich works for J&J refining bariatric devices for roux-en-y bypass surgery (FYI Rich’s father was a medical devices inventor, so Rich fell into this line of work naturally), and Rich mentioned to me a couple years ago that this glucose tolerance “miracle” happens virtually EVERY TIME.  Not just sometimes.  Now that’s interesting.
    Paula

  22. Paula says:

    Great post, Gary! The AHS contretemps has stirred things up; worth it that’s it’s resulted in your as-usual-extremely-enlightening blog post!!!

    WHAT YOU WRITE IS SO TRUE: “Certainly in a pursuit – science – in which the one goal is to get the right answer, getting the wrong answer on such a huge and tragic scale borders on inexcusable.”

    NOW FOR A BIT OF INTERESTING CONTROVERSY – Guyenet v. Eenfeldt v. Melchior Meijer:

    Guyenet from July 2011 on “How Does Gastric Bypass Surgery Cause Fat Loss?”

    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-does-gastric-bypass-surgery-cause.html#more http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-does-gastric-bypass-surgery-cause.htmlANDREAS EENFELDT’S RESPONSE (Dr. E is the most famous Swedish proponent of what they call in Sweden “LCHF”):

    Wow, that’s a complicated theory. I think there is a much simpler explanation.Gastric bypass results in an enforced low carb diet through the reduced volume that can be eaten, plus the slower digestion of starch resulting from disconnecting the duodenum (and the amylase from the pancreas).Going on a strict low carb diet sometimes makes the symptoms of type 2 diabetes vanish overnight. Just like gastric bypass sometimes does. Coincidence? I think not:
    http://www.dietdoctor.com/across-the-river-for-water-surgery-for-diabetesOf course, low carb diets have also been proven to give significantly more weight loss than conventional low calorie advice. At least thirteen high quality trials (RCTs) has shown a significant advantage:http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-scienceLuckily there is a smarter and more natural solution to the obesity epidemic than cutting away your stomach or giving up food for “bland liquid from a straw”.

    Melchior Meijer said:

    Andreas and Jenny,Gastric bypass immediately restores glucose tolerance in some people. Previously diabetic patients have normal OGGT’s, overnight.http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/2/375.full.pdfThis effect is not seen after carbohydrate restriction, quite the opposite. [! Disagree! Paula] I don’t say carb restriction isn’t a smart intervention in diabetes, but it controls the disease, it does not correct it. Something very crucial to glucose metabolism must be going on (or not going on) in the upper intestine and it should be investigated.  July 10, 2011  6:47 AM

    MY COMMENT:

    I have to say, tho GT and AE are my heros, MM has a VERY GOOD POINT about “Something very crucial to glucose metabolism must be going on…and should be investigated.”  Brag alert: My nephew Rich works for J&J refining bariatric devices for roux-en-y bypass surgery (FYI Rich’s father was a medical devices inventor, so Rich fell into this line of work naturally), and Rich mentioned to me a couple years ago that this glucose tolerance “miracle” happens virtually EVERY TIME. Not just sometimes. Now that’s interesting.

    Paula

  23. Paula says:

    I AM SO REMINDED BY GT’S KUHN QUOTE OF YOUNG & INNOCENT BARRY MARSHALL, M.D. WHO IN 1983 DISCOVERED THAT HELICOBACTOR PYLORI (aka “H. Pylori”) CAUSES GASTRITIS & STOMACH ULCERS WHEN FOR 50 YEARS THIS ELUDED EVERYONE (now these cases are universally treated with antibiotics):

    GT quotes Kuhn who observes “in his seminal thesis on paradigm shifts [that] the people who invariably do manage to shift scientific paradigms are ‘EITHER VERY YOUNG OR VERY NEW TO THE FIELD WHOSE PARADIGM THEY CHANGE… for obviously these are the men [or women, of course] who, being little committed by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.’”So when a shift does happen, it’s almost invariably the case that AN OUTSIDER OR A NEWCOMER…IS GOING TO BE THE ONE WHO PULLS IT OFF.”

    As James Le Fanu, M.D. puts it (p. 155 of his “The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine”) when he discusses Barry Marshall, M.D.’s discovery, “By the end of the 1980s every gut specialist in the world was looking for and finding helicobater in their patients’ stomachs and curing their ulcers with antibiotics.  There was now no escaping the scale of their earlier collective self-deception, for not only had they failed to see these bacteria even though they were present in virtually all their patients, but they had systematically misinterpreted the many clues pointing out the fact that peptic ulcers must be caused by an infectious agent.” 

    On p. 155 Le Fanu also points out that these bacteria are “almost certainly responsible for up to two-thirds of cases of stomach cancer.”  I found this last point a possible explanation for the recent deaths by stomach cancer/duodenal cancer, respectively, of the president and  another higher-up of the “OD” (Optimal Diet”) movement (much like Atkins’ revolution) started by Jan Kwasniewski.  The facts:  “Recently Adam Jany, president of the OSBO (the Polish Optimal Dieters’ association), died of stomach cancer at 64 after 17 years on the Optimal Diet. Earlier Karol Braniek, another leader of the OSBO, died at 68 from duodenal cancer.”

  24. The paper Gary Taubes refers to above “Obesity and Energy Balance is the tail Wagging the Dog”
    has been placed online, you can read it here.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/61236146/Obesity-and-Energy-Balance-is-the-Tail-Wagging-the-Dog

    While others may be wish to remain on the the fence in this debate my experience is that while following traditional healthy low fat low calorie eat less exercise more advice  I was gaining weight and losing mobility year on year. At the time I thought because the “exercise more” factor wasn’t an option for me (previous polio now late effects) I was condemned to being being constantly hungry or obese.
    Only after listening to Adiposity 101 and adopting this  low carb regime http://blogg.passagen.se/dahlqvistannika/?anchor=my_lowcarb_dietary_programe_in was I able to lose weight, become regain some lost mobility, and stop feeling hungry all the time. 
    For me the palatability food reward Hypothesis did not apply as I’d already cut out sugar/soda’s/sweets and the usual snack suspects. Having lost my Wheat Belly I remain weight stable without counting carbs/calories or deliberating restricting calories. I’m indebted to Gary Taubes for enabling me to eat well, enjoy more than the odd glass of red wine while remaining mobile and weight stable.

  25. Steve says:

    I understand the difficulty of being an outsider and trying not to be dismissed as a crank.  I think time is the only solution.  Just keep spreading the word feverishly and eventually you will get enough young researchers looking into your ideas.  It’s just a shame the subject area is so critical.  Time is going to lose more lives.

  26. Marian says:

    I just discovered your book, after purposefully choosing not to read too much about nutrition for years because so much of what I read seemed so foolish. I followed the conventional food pyramid and believed in the wisdom, calories in should = calories out.  I attributed slow but steady weight gain to personal weakness.  But a combination of events led me to the decision to do some research, especially about “metabolic disorder.” I discovered your book and some others, and I am absolutely blown away by your research and conclusions, and the implications for so many of us!

    It is so telling that your presentation evoked the question “do you think we are all idiots?” Such a defensive answer and also completely understandable. I first learned about cognitive dissonance in Psych 101 many years ago.  What an obstacle it is for all of us in our journey through life.

    Thank you so much for your generosity in so freely sharing this information, in your books and in your blog.  One of my personal criteria for deciding on the credibility of a writer is determining what their personal gain will be if I choose to act on their advice.  For you I see little personal gain, just a lot of frustration as you fight for a change of paradigms. (I know one doesn’t get rich writing books!)

    I very much look forward to seeing the rest in the series, and thank you again!  I’ve already changed my eating habits (and hope to change the habits of some loved ones as well)!

  27. Shawn Brown says:

    You discussion of various experiments reminds me of an article I read last year:

    “The Truth Wears Off” - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

  28. Stephen Love says:

    I am getting tired of all this.

    It would be nice if bloggers on these issues would stick to dicussing the facts, and refrain from impugning motives and personal attacks.

    This criticism applies to a greater or lesser degree to most people who blog on this subject, so I am not just criticising this blog.

    Readers can make their own judgments about whether  (insert name) is arrogant, egotistical, greedy, stupid, aggressive, balanced , knowledgeable, nice, horrible, fat, lean, a shill, or whatever.

    To all bloggers: more signal, less noise please.  Resist resorting to the ad hominem stuff; in the end it does no good.  I know how hard it is to resist attacking someone who has attacked or misrepresented you. I live in a glass house too.

    Please (all) impress me and others with high quality discussion while treating others with dignity and respect (whether or not you think they deserve it. Show you are better by not taking the bait.

    Steve L   (maybe I will post this comment on other blogs to show I am trying to be even-handed here)

    (Gary…so far I have posted this on CarbSanity…. I am to post it elsewhere…)

    • Gary Taubes says:

      As I said to Hans above, I’m on your side. 
      One fundamental catch, though, is that we are all attempting to move science forward, and part of that job is to question assertions that we find questionable or lacking in support. That’s what Stephan has finally done with my work, and he could have done it in such away that didn’t require a response from me, but I think that, either way, he raised these issues to the point where a response is now justified. Evelyn aka Carbsane never did (IMO), nor did Kreiger, because their attitude was sufficiently objectionable and their science sufficiently bad that it never got to the point that I didn’t have more productive ways to spend my time. With Stephan, I respect his work enough, as do others, that the balance of time and productivity has shifted. And, yes, what I was trying to do with Stephan at the AHS was question his assertions and point out critical evidence that I thought he was ignoring and that undermined his hypothesis. I’ll discuss that evidence again in my next post (should I get the time to write it while we still care). As I’ve said to Stephan, while my social skills may occasionally be lacking, and that was obviously one of them, scientific seminars are precisely the place for that kind of critical assessment from the audience. I like to think I’ve treated Stephan with dignity and respect in this post, and I’m going to try my best to do it in the posts that follow. And as I said to Hans, and have written to Stephan in a private e-mail, if you have any ideas how to escape this vicious cycle without perpetuating the cycle, and yet still satisfying the readers who want to know my problems with the food reward/palatability hypothesis and why I find Stephan’s critique of the ideas in GC,BC and WWGF so uncompelling. Avoiding “ad hominem stuff” goes without saying.  gt

      • Anonymous says:

        It’s gracious to give Guyenet the opportunity to save face.  If he was offended by your questioning, that could have been resolved privately.  But, he really dug his own grave with the poorly crafted rebuttal to the so called “carbohydrate hypothesis.” I was a bit disappointed to see Dr. Harris among the acolytes.

  29. Peter Ray says:

    Peter from Hyperlipid has written an interesting critique of Stephan’s “demolition” of the carbohydrate hypothesis: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-have-read-good-calories-bad-calories.html

  30. Hans Keer says:

    What I don’t understand is, that bloggers with apparently the
    same goals and solutions that differ not that much (limit (refined/palatable/industrial)
    foods/carbohydrates), fight each other instead of fighting the establishment
    together. Of course the establishment enjoys this development very much.

    • Gary Taubes says:

        I agree with you entirely on this, and it’s one reason I’ve had so much trouble writing these posts. I more or less have to respond to Stephan’s critique of the ideas in my books, and I don’t see how it can be separated from an assessment of the food reward/palatability hypothesis which is what got me into this situation. Indeed, the goal for all of us should be to get the medical research establishment to understand the fundamental defects with what they’re doing, and then they can do the science necessary to find out the truth (assuming they’re capable of doing good science after the past fifty years of doing otherwise). I was on the phone for two hours yesterday with Kurt Harris, bascially making the point that all these arguments/disagreements can be settled, but not by arguing or blogging, but by rigorous experimental tests. Since we can’t to those, and “they” — the establishment — can, all our energy should be devoted to that goal, and certainly less to sowing divisiveness between groups of people who basically agree on the interpretation of some large proportion of the evidence. 
        That said, I’m open to any ideas on what to do in posts two and three that defends my work and explains my problems with food reward/palatability, but doesn’t lead to more infighting.
      gt

      • Hans Keer says:

        Perhaps our newborn initiative http://www.getuhlahyv.com/ can be of help.

      • kilton9 says:

        Hey Gary,

        I think you did a wonderful job in this post of discussing the issues as you see them without making it even remotely personal. This is very hard to do. It’s a real challenge to keep emotions under control in situations like this (when someone says you’re incorrect, but you think they’re incorrect), and I think you’re pretty darn good at it.

        Even Stephan didn’t do such a good job in his knee-jerk response to this post, which is why he subsequently deleted it. And Peter’s most recent post — while awesome — has a good amount of his typical sarcasm embedded in it, which is bound to irk Stephan to some extent and will probably won’t do anything good as far as their “relationship” goes.

        So I think you’re right on-target and I hope you’ll continue in this style. You’ve put up with a lot of immaturity and personal-attacks from Evelyn and Kreiger, so you’re a veteran. :-)

      • Hans Keer says:

        Gave it another thought. A perhaps radical suggestion could be: Forget about Part
        II and III. Today’s fish is wrapped in yesterday’s newspaper. Your precious
        energy can be used more effectively. Let’s focus on the future.

        • Anonymous says:

          Yeah, I have to agree.  Time to move on.  Everybody can have their own stage or blog.  The legitimacy of an idea can stand or crumble on its own merits.

  31. Interesting post as usual Gary, looking forward to the following parts.

    Guyenet immediately posted a reply, then he removed it. This controversy is fascinating:

    http://www.dietdoctor.com/the-taubes-and-guyenet-show-goes-on

  32. Good article

  33. Gary is a scientist and journalist and scientific research writer. He studies science along with theory and hypothesis and preconceived notions and discoveries, along with testing results, regarding all of the elements of existence and phycology of man and the earth and all of it’s elements and species, in all matters.

    Right now he is focusing on body chemistry as it relates to sugars and diabetes and obesity and cancer and mental disease.

    Major global implications are at stake!

    That’s what he does and that’s what he writes about, and he does it well.

    I as a layman, simply observe and think with my mind and see “what has happened” and “what is happening”, to mankind and the earth itself, and what we can do about it.

    The question of “how” and “what”!

    We have simply blasted about ten thousand times more sugar into mans bloodstream than nature ever intended.

    The result of these phenomena are plain to see.

    Where this will all end and where this will all lead, is an unknown.

    Should this be stopped?

    Could this be stopped?

    Can we stop?

    Probably not.

    Could we improve mankind and how we effect the earth and all existence.

    Probably.

  34. Len Fox says:

    Rubbing things generally creates heat.  I expect fire by the time this comparison rubs out.

  35. Jane says:

    I can’t tell you how happy I am to see you write about the meaning of science.  Very smart people so often seem clueless about the scientific method and real scientific thinking.  Years ago I was a philosophy major and fell in love with Thomas Kuhn and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  What an eye opener!  This is so important that you can’t hit people over the head with it too often.  

    Jane Reed

  36. Alexa says:

    I studied Kuhn’s work/philosophy of science and read Good Calories, Bad Calories for fun last summer. I am glad to see that rationality in the practice of nutritional science is being critically examined publicly, especially given the dramatic implications for public health. Theoretical differences aside, it is particularly this spirit of thinking that separates Taubes’ work from all of the noise in the main stream media.

    I just wanted to share the following excerpt from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions which captures the tension as Taubes is highlighting here:

    “Without commitment to a paradigm there could be no normal science. Furthermore, that commitment must extend to areas and to degrees of precision for which there is no full precedent. If it did not, the paradigm could provide no puzzles that had not already been solved. Besides, it is not only normal science that depends on commitment to a paradigm. If existing theory binds the scientist only with respect to existing applications, then there can be no surprises, anomalies, or crises. But these are just the signposts that point the way to extraordinary science. If positivistic restrictions on the range of a theory’s legitimate applicability are taken literally, the mechanism that tells the scientific community what problems may lead to fundamental change must cease to function. And when that occurs, the community will inevitably return to something much like its pre-paradigm state, a condition in which all members practice science but in which their gross product scarcely resembles science at all. Is it really any wonder that the price of significant scientific advance is a commitment that runs the risk of being wrong?”

  37. Hans Keer says:

    Sorry, something went wrong. I can’t delete this comment.

  38. Anonymous says:

    The issue for me with Stephan G’s p*ssing contest is that I have yet to find anyone except for himself who actually appears to understand his theory. No two people give the same explanation; not even his most ardent supporters appear to agree on what he is supposed to be claiming. 

    He seems incapable of explaining it clearly and concisely; but he has plenty of attitude, which to me is odd. His strange habit of posting insults and then taking them down in a huff makes him seem like an impulsive teenager, not a reputable scientist who offers reasoned remarks based on quality research. From reading all over the net – whatever it is he appears to trying to say – his theory as generally (mis?)understood seems to explain very little and doesn’t seem to offer any predictive power. It doesn’t explain diabetes, it doesn’t explain obesity, it offers no mechanism for understanding metabolism. Nor does he appear to be able to tell me who will get fat on any given diet or who won’t. If I take 2 people and feed them the same bland diet of tapioca in a lab, they could react differently – for example if one is Lance Armstrong and the other Kirstie Alley. But he can’t explain to me why that would be, since they’re both eating bland stuffs. His theory seems to have zero room for genetic variation among people; and he doesn’t seem to understand that folks with a genetic propensity to obesity and diabetes are really different than the Lance Armstrongs of this world in subtle and important ways. In fact, he seems somewhat out of touch with the whole known etiology of diabetes – a damning problem, I’d think.

    • Anonymous says:

       In fact, he seems somewhat out of touch with the whole known etiology of diabetes – a damning problem, I’d think. Indeed, it seems some people following Dr Bernstein’s low carbohydrate approach to Diabetes management have a problem with maintaining optimum weight.
      Example thread here.http://www.diabetes-book.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1315160399
      The solution to the problem is to carefully increase insulin or protein.
      Peter (Hyperlipid) also mentions his BMI is a little less than ideal. 

  39. Anonymous says:

    Hi Gary and all you lot, I’m finding this pretty interesting, however, for some reason I associate carbohydrate with hydration. Is this valid, if you eat less carbs is it more difficult to rehydrate or stay hydrated? I love to be active and sometimes seem to struggle to stay hydrated. Do you have any ideas on this, do you know if salt can assist in the hydration process or does it go the opposite way? While I’m asking, what do you think about caffiene? Good, bad, indifferent?

    Thanks loads, Pip.

  40. jocko271 says:

    Is this your idea of an apology for the way you treated a fellow scientist and researcher at the AHS?

    Very lame then, especially given how you weren’t anywhere near as tough on Dr. Oz as you were on Stephan. Is that because you sell books?

    • Gary Taubes says:

      Hi Jocko,
         No, this is not an apology, nor is it supposed to be an apology. I apologized to Stephan the night of the AHS, and that was enough for me. But I didn’t apologize for the criticism, because that’s what scientists are supposed to do. In fact, if you read GC,BC, you’ll see in the epilog that I criticize the entire fields of nutrition and obesity research for abstaining from the kind of brutal critiques that I believe are absolutely necessary for science to make progress. The “is this the way you treated a fellow scientist and researcher?” nonsense is precisely one of the problems with these fields. If someone proposes a hypothesis that has holes in the argument, what scientists are supposed to do is point it out. What I apologized for that night was my lack of social graces (a polite way to describe how I phrased it at the time) and picking what, in retrospect, was not the right place or time to do it. 
         As for Oz, I was plenty tough with him — whether I was as tough is a hard call — but I had no control over what was edited out of the show after filming. And Oz wasn’t quite as defensive as Stephan was when I did disagree with him. I doubt you’ll find too many Oz shows, if any, where a guest disagreed with Oz as often as I did. And then, of course, the point of going on the Oz show was not to debate him — although that’s how his producers set it up — but to expose his audience to the ideas we’re discussing here. And, in that, I succeeded, at least if the e-mails I’ve received from his viewers are any indication. 
      gt

      • jocko271 says:

        Stephan was anything but “defensive” considering your condescension during the AHS. In addition, his response on his blog, where he picks apart the carbohydrate hypothesis bit by bit, was much more gracious to you than any of your naysayers have been. You haven’t given him credit for anything, instead you imply that he’s not being scientific. And publicly in front of those very interested in his research. The one being defensive was you.

        And you go on and on about the “holes” in the argument, but you haven’t shown any to date. I have read your books, tried low carb and even very low carb for 3 years, and neither worked for fat loss. Lowering food reward, I reached my goal weight in 4 months.

      • jocko271 says:

        Stephan was anything but “defensive” considering your condescension during the AHS. In addition, his response on his blog, where he picks apart the carbohydrate hypothesis bit by bit, was much more gracious to you than any of your naysayers have been. You haven’t given him credit for anything, instead you imply that he’s not being scientific. And publicly in front of those very interested in his research. The one being defensive was you.

        And you go on and on about the “holes” in the argument, but you haven’t shown any to date. I have read your books, tried low carb and even very low carb for 3 years, and neither worked for fat loss. Lowering food reward, I reached my goal weight in 4 months.

        • Anonymous says:

          I posted this on Dr. Eenfeldt’s blog a few weeks ago:

          Two fundamental problems I saw in Stephan Guyenet’s post was he tried to decouple a coupled system by citing the isolated effects of insulin in the baboon’s brain. Any well trained engineer or mathematician will tell you a coupled system has to be solved using eigenvalues and eigenvectors.The other was his refutation of hypothesis #2 was simply restating the conservation of energy. This is particularly disappointing coming from Guyenet because this is the same mistake calorie counters make. Conservation of energy describes the effects of the problem, not the problem itself.

  41. jocko271 says:

    Is this your idea of an apology for the way you treated a fellow scientist and researcher at the AHS?

    Very lame then, especially given how you weren’t anywhere near as tough on Dr. Oz as you were on Stephan. Is that because you sell books?

  42. Anonymous says:

    Can someone explain briefly what was said to whom at AHS and in what
    context? I’m not just asking as a casual spectator in a blog fight: the
    background seems genuinely important to me. Since the real question here
    is whether the scientific/medical community can be moved toward a less
    dismissive stance, the back story about what was said between these two
    articulate and astute science bloggers/authors in a public forum, and
    what reaction it generated in the room at the time, seems to be a very
    important part of the puzzle.

    Best regards to both Gary and Stephan, thanks so much to both of you for
    putting all this out here in public for us to read. I certainly hope
    both will continue this fascinating conversation!

  43. Speed makes you strong willed and big headed and all knowing and self centered.

    It also makes you malicious and kniving and viscous.
    And of course you are a “star”!Just look in the mirror!Down to earth and a great conversationalist and with a great sense of humor.You are the greatest and humblest of persons there ever was.Just ol’ common you.Isn’t life great!It’s just a little “speed” buzz.Gives you a little more energy and you can stay up longer to work or study more.– If what I’m saying is true and sugar and hybrid carbohydrates are speed.We are in a world of “po po”!

  44. Anonymous says:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hzoFgwFeMQ
    this link takes you to a You Tube video of the exchange. 
    It’s worth actually listening to the presentations at Ancestral Health Symposium so you see the context.
    http://vimeo.com/27927729 for Stephan’s
    http://vimeo.com/27929821 for Gary’s
    I think it’s important that we constantly question everyone whatever their views and whatever friendships loyalties are involved. We must not be afraid of challenging anyone when we think they are ignoring the obvious. It was too much compliance with consensus opinion that got us into this nutrition mess.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you – now I see that Stephan had earlier followed up with a widely read response, which wasn’t quite clear from Gary’s post. I stopped reading most nutrition blogs a couple years ago as people start to sound like a broken record after a while. This is getting interesting again. 
       

    • Anonymous says:

      Ted, sorry, I just don’t follow this. How is this important or useful? I’m surprised no one here discusses genetics, seriously.

      The issue *is* genetics – let’s start with rs1801282, for example. Please see Razquin C et al. (2009) . “The Mediterranean diet protects against waist circumference enlargement in 12Ala carriers for the PPARgamma gene: 2 years’ follow-up of 774 subjects at high cardiovascular risk.” Br J Nutr 102(5):672-9.If you have GG here, you are likely to benefit from a so-called “Mediterranean-style diet.” If not, you may not. If you have GG at rs1801282, eat the Mediterranean diet! If you don’t, that diet probably won’t work for you, try something else. 
      Look at rs5082. Again, if you have GG, you are likely to gain weight eating saturated fat: Corella D et al. (2009) . “APOA2, dietary fat, and body mass index: replication of a gene-diet interaction in 3 independent populations.” Arch Intern Med169(20):1897-906. If not, sat fat’s not such an issue for you. 

      What this may indicate is that folks with GG at rs5082 won’t respond to a high-fat Atkins-type diet. These people should probably eat at lower-fat diet and avoid sat fat. But everyone else may find an Atkins-style diet is great. 

      If we look at rss662799, according to Corella D et al. (2007) . “APOA5 gene variation modulates the effects of dietary fat intake on body mass index and obesity risk in the Framingham Heart Study.” J Mol Med 85(2):119-28, people with AA here are also likely to gain on a high-fat diet. Low-fat for them. 

      Then take rs4994. If you have AA here, an exercise regime will probably help you lose weight: Shiwaku K et al. (2003) . “Difficulty in losing weight by behavioral intervention for women with Trp64Arg polymorphism of the beta3-adrenergic receptor gene.”Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 27(9):1028-36. But if you have GG, forget it, exercise apparently does little for you in weight management. Skip the gym. 

      Also, sadly, some people appear literally born with a tendency to be heavy. rs10871777 – the difference between AA, AG, and GG appears to have a significant impact on your BMI. Loos RJ et al. (2008) . “Common variants near MC4R are associated with fat mass, weight and risk of obesity.” Nat Genet. People with GG here may have just lost the genetic lottery and nothing’s going to change that, as hard as they try. 

      Where people carry weight is also genetically determined: rs12970134, for example. An AA here suggests you’re an apple, predisposed to carry fat around the waist – the most dangerous place – and predisposed to insulin resistance. GG, you luck out, skinny waist, no insulin resistance. Chambers JC et al. (2008) . “Common genetic variation near MC4R is associated with waist circumference and insulin resistance.” Nat Genet.

      So you see from just these handful of studies how it’s possible that some folks are born skinny, no insulin resistance, and benefit from a low-fat diet with lots of exercise. But others got a different draw – born to high BMIs, born to be apples, born to tend towards insulin resistance, and born to benefit from a high-fat, sat-fat diet with no exercise.

      Many combinations are obviously possible. The important thing is that doctors start testing folks and assigning people to the lifestyle that will benefit their actual bodies according to their genes. 

      • Anonymous says:

        Melancholyaeon, my impression is that Ted posted that link because I asked what exchange occurred between Gary and Stephan – useful for those of us who just tuned in.

      • Anonymous says:

        Re Ted, sorry, I just don’t follow this. How is this important or useful? I’m surprised no one here discusses genetics, seriously………….Snip…………………… The important thing is that doctors start testing folks and assigning people to the lifestyle that will benefit their actual bodies according to their genes.I don’t think you have bothered to listen to Gary’s talk that I posted the link to and I think you are missing the point. 
        I’m in the UK,  I wasn’t at the talk, I haven’t yet seen the slides Gary was discussing and they haven’t yet appeared on Slideshare BUT you have to be pretty out of touch with reality not to be able to have a pretty good guess what those slides were showing. Malnutirition isn’t just about a lack of calories but a lack of nutrition. The level of malnutrition we are currently seeing in our obese young children will have it’s impact on the eggs/sperm they are carrying and this will be reflected in the next generation and also the one following. Sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses in humanshttp://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v14/n2/full/5201538a.htmland for those who can’t stand science papershttp://epigenetica.blogspot.com/2007/04/sex-specific-male-line.htmlis  a discussion on the topic. Our great grandchildren will pay the price/demonstrate the consequences of our reluctance to take what Taubes/Lustig are saying seriously. 

      • Rose Nunez Smith says:

        Melancholy, I’m a fan of personal genetics, and have run my genome through a few sources now, including 23andMe and Promethease. However, as interesting as some of these correlations are at the moment, I think we’re a very, very long way away from being able to “assign” a lifestyle to someone based on a few alleles. 

        Just some personal examples of the problems with implementing such a system based on current knowledge: the BMI allele (rs10871777) you mention above says I have typical odds of having a “normal” BMI, but I’ve struggled since puberty to maintain a normal weight, and failed 90% of the time. I have a similar conflict with the “Mediterranean Diet” allele and the “exercise” allele you mention above — I come from four generations of obese/morbidly obese women (at least four; that’s as far back as I have photographic evidence), and the only protocol that’s helped me has been an all-meat diet. (I wouldn’t ordinarily bother with this kind of N=1 data, but the topic is helping individuals on a personal level, after all.)

        And on the non-personal-evidence front, there’s been a lot of discussion recently of the problem of false positive correlations in science in general. Further up in the convo Shawn Brown linked to Jonah Lehrer’s excellent overview of this problem: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20194711do 

        Having played Negative Nancy (sorry about that), I do think it would be extremely productive to start compiling a database of genomes and looking into individual diet and weight histories. A daunting task, but 23andMe has already contributed in other areas with their “23andWe Research Snippets,” so it can certainly be done. With a more solid, reliable set of data to look at, there will then be an opportunity for individualized, genetically based dietary counseling. But I really don’t think we’re there yet.

        • Anonymous says:

          Obviously Rose the few early studies I list above aren’t the whole answer. Of course there are many more genes that affect metabolism. But because we don’t have all answers yet doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work with the best knowledge we have now, as imperfect as it is. 

          And because we need more research before we can truly understand what a person’s metabolism is doesn’t invalidate the point either. Where do we start? We’re in the crisis now. So let’s start with what the best contemporary science tells us. Why do we keep making the perfect the enemy of the merely good?

          If an all-meat diet works for you – eat it – that’s the whole point. What’s going to work for you won’t work for me. The larger point is that “one size” can’t fit all. Stephan G’s theory is a classic “one-size” model as best as I can tell, that allows for no difference based in genetics, doesn’t allow us to make predictions, and doesn’t explain how obesity or diabetes come about. That he defends with so much heat and almost no light seems very telling to me.

          • Rose Nunez Smith says:

            Melancholy, I think Taubes’s research points us in the direction we should go in right now: Reducing carbohydrate intake, especially refined carbs, is a good intervention for the great majority of people with metabolic dysregulation. Genetic analysis isn’t required prior to advising such a move; as far as I can tell, there is no indication in the current research that lowering carbohydrates is harmful to anyone. 

            My objection to genetic analysis isn’t to the analysis per se, it’s to the (for example) lame advice I would have received under the current state of the evidence to go on the “Mediterranean Diet,” which has a macronutrient composition that’s been proven in my own experience to be a disaster for me. It’s because of Taubes’s work and book (GC,BC), directly, that I had the courage to keep lowering my carb intake to levels that even hardcore LCers found worrisome, lol. And I did this without benefit of genetic counseling.

            Again, I don’t object to looking toward something like “metabolic typing” in the future, but at present the state of our knowledge is such that we will give people bad advice if we think we can read their genomes with any accuracy. Better advice at the moment seems to me to be: If you’re having weight and other metabolic problems (and you have a human genome), lower your carb intake incrementally until you find the level that resolves your problems. 

          • Anonymous says:

            Totally, Rose. We don’t disagree. I’m a big fan of Taubes and Lustig both. Together I think they have a very nice explanation for diabetes and obesity and why low-carb fixes these. 

            I would love to see them write an article together. Lustig’s model seems to allow us to make predictions, which is good – I hope he gets funding to do more experiments. At the same time we meet people for whom low-carb totally fails, just as the Med diet failed for you. We have to admit this. These people should eat Med, if it works better for them. 

            The key idea is that there is no single cure, no single right answer for all, despite what Guyenet says.

          • Anonymous says:

            http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-have-read-good-calories-bad-calories.htmlHyperlipid has some relevant comments to make on the role of genetics in obesity. 

  45. Anthony Knox says:

    Just a note on Stephan’s version of food-reward.

    One of the fundamental differences between the “calories in, calories out” (CICO) theory and the carbohydrate theory of obesity is the order of causality.  In the CICO model, overeating comes first, followed by fat deposition.  In the carbohydrate model, fat deposition comes first, followed by overeating.

    From reading Stephan’s posts about food reward, the order of causality isn’t entirely clear, at least to me.  When he talks about “setpoint” he seems to be saying that fat metabolism is changed in such a way as to partition more calories to fat, but by a means other than elevated insulin.  Fat deposition comes first.

    Other times, he seems to say simply that hyper-palatable food causes us to eat more than we otherwise would, which results in weight gain.  Overeating comes first.

    The second version would seem to put Stephan’s version of food-reward “firmly” within the calories in/calories out model.

    • Anonymous says:

      When you put it this way, it occurs to me that our framing of these questions arises partly out of the context of today’s food industry, which by necessity looks for ways to squeeze profit out of the virtually inedible food items in our fast food chains and supermarket shelves by marginally increasing their so-called “palatability” to increase the amount sold and consumed relative to costs. At this point, it seems, they literally can’t physically stuff any more carbohydrates into modern industrial “food” – at least, they haven’t yet found a way to do so according to the laws of physics and chemistry as we know them. They will need ways to increase palatabilty in order to sustain agro-capitalism’s insane profits as the global economy is transformed in unexpected ways in the coming years.

      If someone can replace the Taubes-style carbohydrate model with a fully articulated Guyenet-style reward/set-point model (along the lines of Anthony’s “second version” above), I imagine that would be well funded, since even if insulin is basically the driver of the recent obesity epidemic, as Peter/Hyperlipid maintains (reasonably, I think), 21st century agro-capitalism will have to seduce the world into continuing eating new kinds of crap in a way that maximizes profits. It would be a competition over our brains.

      Sorry if this states the obvious or veers off-topic, but the science-industry connection has evolved since Kuhn, and I wonder if we have a handle on how it helps frame core assumptions.

      • Paula says:

        Yes!!!  Well put - and visionary!  Is there a word for a seer of true and dark visions?  Yipes. You certainly set forth a believable future vision…

        But I think it’s even worse than your prognosticated dystopia because the facet I’m going to describe is  RIGHT NOW, not in the future, but RIGHT NOW/  And it is this:  the entire USA is planted in three TOTAL CRAP CROPS which are more than terrible for us, for the animals we force to eat them, AND for the 3rd world countries whose farmers and economies and futures we destroy by dumping the excess:  Corn, Wheat and Soy.  (OK, I don’t know if wheat is bad for horses, but Mary C. Vernon, M.D., the great LCHF doctor in Kansas with whom Taubes has partnered via Innovative Metabolic Solutions, LLC – http://www.myimsonline.com – I think talks about it here — she’s also a big horse person and discusses horses and their nutrition at least in the follow-up questions here: https://www.myimsonline.com/news/Presentation-by-Dr-Mary-Vernon-at-KU-Medical-Center).
        https://www.myimsonline.com/news/Presentation-by-Dr-Mary-Vernon-at-KU-Medical-Center).

        We force animals to eat them too.  Diabetic cats and dogs… (feed your pets the ”BARF” diet — ‘biologically appropriate raw food’ — and only supplement w dry brands like ‘Wilderness” which is low carb w/ explicitly no wheat, etc!)

      • Paula says:

        Yes!!!  Well put - and visionary!  Is there a word for a seer of true and dark visions?  Yipes. You certainly set forth a believable future vision…

        But I think it’s even worse than your prognosticated dystopia because the facet I’m going to describe is  RIGHT NOW, not in the future, but RIGHT NOW/  And it is this:  the entire USA is planted in three TOTAL CRAP CROPS which are more than terrible for us, for the animals we force to eat them, AND for the 3rd world countries whose farmers and economies and futures we destroy by dumping the excess:  Corn, Wheat and Soy.  (OK, I don’t know if wheat is bad for horses, but Mary C. Vernon, M.D., the great LCHF doctor in Kansas with whom Taubes has partnered via Innovative Metabolic Solutions, LLC – http://www.myimsonline.com – I think talks about it here — she’s also a big horse person and discusses horses and their nutrition at least in the follow-up questions here: https://www.myimsonline.com/news/Presentation-by-Dr-Mary-Vernon-at-KU-Medical-Center).
        https://www.myimsonline.com/news/Presentation-by-Dr-Mary-Vernon-at-KU-Medical-Center).

        We force animals to eat them too.  Diabetic cats and dogs… (feed your pets the ”BARF” diet — ‘biologically appropriate raw food’ — and only supplement w dry brands like ‘Wilderness” which is low carb w/ explicitly no wheat, etc!)

  46. Ron Harrington says:

    Gary,

    Why don’t you outsource your defense of the hypothesis to Hyperlipid and get on with writing your next book?  I want to hear what you’ve got to say about sugar.

    • Paula says:

      Oct. 2012 is when we’re looking for the sugar book!  (GT extrapolated in an interview with Jimmy Moore or someone and that was the expected date…)

  47. svero - says:

    Well I’m happy this whole thing has blown up. We need this sort of debate to get closer to the truth. I want *all* the ideas on obesity. If there’s something wrong about blaming insulin and carbs I’d like to see why. (So thanks Stephen for that effort) And if there’s something wrong with the critique then I want to read a response and to understand that as well. As far as I’m concerned any of us looking for the truth are better served with this sort of back and forth. Sure, do away with the personal attacks and ad-hominem, but keep the debate going. It’s not untoward. It’s correct. A little spirited debate is not a bad thing. Are any of us who are interested in this poorer for Peter’s latest post, or the coming responses from Gary or Stephen’s rebuttles? I think not.

    I’m reminded in a way of certain artist friends of mine. Some when they ask for an opinion of their latest work, want to hear what I actually think. Others take offense at any opinion which isn’t glowingly positive. IMHO the ones looking for honest criticism are usually the better artists. We shouldn’t all be so busy sparing feelings that we end up wandering around blindly thinking our work is excellent when really it isn’t any good. Sure a certain level of decorum is required, otherwise the debate gets side-tracked, but when the ideas hit the real world, no mercy is shown. You can’t talk your way out of a broken metabolism any more than you can get people bidding for a lousy painting. At some point there is only the truth, and debate often helps us get there.

  48. svero - says:

    Well I’m happy this whole thing has blown up. We need this sort of debate to get closer to the truth. I want *all* the ideas on obesity. If there’s something wrong about blaming insulin and carbs I’d like to see why. (So thanks Stephen for that effort) And if there’s something wrong with the critique then I want to read a response and to understand that as well. As far as I’m concerned any of us looking for the truth are better served with this sort of back and forth. Sure, do away with the personal attacks and ad-hominem, but keep the debate going. It’s not untoward. It’s correct. A little spirited debate is not a bad thing. Are any of us who are interested in this poorer for Peter’s latest post, or the coming responses from Gary or Stephen’s rebuttles? I think not.

    I’m reminded in a way of certain artist friends of mine. Some when they ask for an opinion of their latest work, want to hear what I actually think. Others take offense at any opinion which isn’t glowingly positive. IMHO the ones looking for honest criticism are usually the better artists. We shouldn’t all be so busy sparing feelings that we end up wandering around blindly thinking our work is excellent when really it isn’t any good. Sure a certain level of decorum is required, otherwise the debate gets side-tracked, but when the ideas hit the real world, no mercy is shown. You can’t talk your way out of a broken metabolism any more than you can get people bidding for a lousy painting. At some point there is only the truth, and debate often helps us get there.

  49. This is off topic (sorry) but I always wanted to ask you what do you think now about cold fusion?
     

  50. Tracy Byrnes says:

    Does anyone know of any study guides or discussion guides for GCBC or WWGF? I’d love to host some kind of book club discussion about one or both of the books and a discussion guide would be a wonderfully helpful tool to guide the conversation. Does anything currently exist or are there plans to put one together?

  51. I’m often reminded of the example of gastric ulcers. For decades virtually every doctor alive accepted that such ulcers were caused by “stress” until a renegade researcher proved them wrong. Does that mean all the docs were idiots? No, but it means they failed to challenge received assumptions. Perhaps that is worse than being an idiot. Then there is the case of Semmelweis…

  52. Paula says:

    Hi Tracy,
     
    You can sign up with This is the Missing Chapter from Good Calories Bad Calories, about gout:
     
    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/05/gout/#comment_list
     
     

  53. Paula says:

    Hi Tracy,
     
    You can sign up with This is the Missing Chapter from Good Calories Bad Calories, about gout:
     
    http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/10/05/gout/#comment_list
     
     

  54. Hans Keer says:

    You surely have read Peter’s Post : http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2011/08/i-have-read-good-calories-bad-calories.html.
    It will make you a difference of five days :-)

  55. Anonymous says:

    Thanks, Gary, for taking the time to share this background.  Cindy Zautcke, Milwaukee, WI

  56. alberto Umapedrinha says:

    Hello, Mr Taubes, 
    I am an emergency physician, with an interest in nutrition, risk factors for vascular diseases, although my practice is kilometers , oops, miles away from that. I ‘m starting reading “good calories bad calories”.Ouch ! I am amazed at the wealth of important data I have learnt in the first 26 pages. This start is sort of a history of the science or so called science on the saturated fat – high cholesterol – vascular diseases, and it sheds a crude ‘n cruel light on the dogma. I’ll probably comment later. I was brought into reading you because a French scientist (De Lorgeril, an opponent of the prevalent cholesterol hunting fad) wrote in one of his books that in GC/BC, you dismantle the blindness and the cherry picking strategies that laid the foundations for the cholesterol theory.Your book is damn rich and after only 26 pages that read like a thriller, I can already see the amount of work and thought behind the lines. Congratulations.That you are “nothing but a journalist” as some have let you understand, well that makes my congratulations even warmer.I’m back to the thriller. By the way did you ever read de Lorgeril’s books ? He scientifically analyses and shows the bias flaws and misinterpretations of the main studies on cholesterol lowering, those very studies that . They unfortunately never were translated into English.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Gary, you get bragging rights to call everyone out on their sub-optimal intelligence once you’ve arrived at the final answer but you’re not there yet. 

    No-one’s fully cracked it.

    Yet.

    If you recognise that now, at least you allow the debate to continue, but if you don’t, you’ll be just as bad as the ‘inexcusable’ behaviour of scientists resting on appeals to authority. I say this because you appear to be gearing up to a large-scale defence of your hypothesis.

    There *are* problems with your carb hypothesis; high sugar meal replacement/weight loss drinks work; people *can* get fat on fat and there are populations *thriving* on very high carb diets. I wrote a while back on what I think you’re missing, and I even typed it rather than writing in crayon: 

    http://www.fatfiction.co.uk/fat/wheatpt1/

  58. Tom Boyer says:

    The biggest change in science since Thomas Kuhn is probably the internet. We could be entering an era where social networking and uncontrolled network dissemination of knowledge can help to drive scientific revolutions. We need dogged journalists like Taubes and brave researchers who risk their careers to break from the official paradigm. But intelligent people who take charge of their own health can probably drive the paradigm shift to an unprecedented degree. Despite the durabilility of the paradigm, anyone who still insists on cal-in-cal-out and denies that people can lose weight eating fat and protein appears laughable in the eyes of those of us — maybe millions — who have personally experienced it. From what I see, the low-carb argument has been won at the grass roots level; all that’s left is for researchers to explain it, for medical schools to teach it, and for nutritionists and doctors to put it into practice. Sadly this will come too late to save millions of people from diabetes and premature death.

    • Anonymous says:

      There’s just one problem – and I hesitate to even broach this – but the whole world can’t eat this way (low carb). There are too many of us, and not enough protein/fat out there to feed us all. We’ve already seriously over fished the seas, and meat is already quite expensive. I know it’s hard not to evangelize about this diet, but I don’t see any way that it can be widely adopted unless we stop reproducing at current rates.

      The agricultural revolution made  it possible for us to populate the planet in previously unheard of numbers, at the same time that it destroyed our health. What a dilemma!

      • You are 100% correct and this dilemma, defies description! — Can you imagine if the whole world were to comprehend and realize these simple facts! 

        The mental aspects in this are even greater!

  59. Anonymous says:

    Mr. Taubes, thank you for continuing to pursue, harangue, and generally be annoying to, the establishment to get more and better nutritional research done. It would have been simpler for you to finish GC, BC and move on to the next interesting puzzle without bothering with all this mess. I would have bought the resulting book, regardless.

    Being absolutely clueless about nutrition, or massively misinformed, I have benefited greatly from your gift for making complex ideas accessible. After slogging through GC, BC, and some of the citations therein, I performed the low-carb/high-fat experiment on a test group of one, myself. It was a great success, shocking, even, given all the time, effort, and expense the test subject had previously expended on “nutritionists” or just starving and exercising.

    The paradigm that will have to shift, that has been so ingrained, is the one where we’ve all been brainwashed into *believing* fat is evil. It is difficult to shift a belief, even for people who are used to facts. It was very difficult for me, and my career isn’t based on the idea, I expect it will be excruciating for those in the field. This explanation of the two theories in opposition is really interesting. I always think of science in the abstract, but it is a fraught human endeavor. You could strip all the topical information from this post, and still have a really excellent essay on how transformative ideas evolve in science. Thank you.

  60. Anonymous says:

    I’d love to hear sometime what you think of the coconut oil/medium-chain triglyceride craze that’s going on in Low-Carb World. I noticed that neither GC,BC, nor WWGF mentioned coconut oil. There are some pretty wild claims out there, at least some of which seem credible (it is used as part of a ketogenic diet for seizure disorders, and has shown some promise in treating Alzheimer’s), but I found a PubMed article that indicates that it causes a release of insulin in spite of containing no carbs (something to do with going straight to the liver for metabolization??), and one book about its positive effects did say that it could cause fat deposition in the liver. I’d like to know more – and which claims are reliable. After all, South Sea islanders who live on pigs, coconuts and fish pretty exclusively are quite lean and healthy.

  61. Chris Tunstall says:

    GT,

    I listened to your recent Latest in Paleo interview, and I realise from that that you understand Stephan’s “set point” theory. I think Stephan realises that “food reward,” if it simply refers to hedonic mechanisms, is just another version of calories in – calories out: we eat more of what we crave, and so we get fat. I also think he fully appreciates that calories in – calories out is just plain wrong, and that is why he has bolted the “set point” theory onto “food reward,” by suggesting that hyperpalatable food has the propensity to increase the set point.

    It all looks a bit ad hoc to me, but you do yourself a disservice by characterising Stephan’s theory as firmly rooted in the energy balance paradigm, when he has specifically distanced it from that.

    There are cogent reasons for supposing that whilst the carbohydrate in the diet is problematic for those already on the slippery slope to insulin resistance, it may not be the ultimate cause. J Stanton has advanced the idea that the underlying disorder is mitochondrial dysfunction, and this is being discussed on Peter’s Hyperlipid blog. Maybe you can trace this to fructose consumption; maybe not.

    While your hypothesis is under attack, I would prefer to see you defending it instead of attacking the hypotheses of those who attack yours. None of this affects the acknowledged fact that your prescription seems to work, and as I see things, it is not at all unlikely that you will eventually be vindicated on the role of insulin.

    GCBC has changed the lives of many people close to me, and I have more in my sights. Thank you for that. In the words of Winston Churchill, “KBO”.

  62. What’s the problem with people who has the tendency to make ad-hominem
    attacks? I suffer this kind of “arguments” from my parents. I don’t have
    a nutrition degree, but I’ve studied the latest theories on metabolic
    syndrome including “Metabolic Flexibility”. Whenever I say that
    consumption of fructose, white flour and high fructose corn syrup
    products are terrible for metabolism, leading to a continuum of diseases
    of civilization and therefore should be avoided, I get attacked. It
    doesn’t matter the studies I may show. Facts don’t seem to matter
    either. Usually they may say: “you’re not a doctor”, “you don’t have
    experience”, or “you’re too arrogant, who are you to talk like that”.
    They say that doctors spent a lifetime curing patients and now out of
    nowhere I came with these “opinions”, that eating too much fruit, which
    they regard as “healthy”, is actually harmful. They try to psicologize
    all the time: like saying: “your thought that theory and knowledge are
    general laws which are superior to experience reflect that you don’t
    have self condifence or you don’t value yourself. I guess that maybe
    they fell under attack by me because of denying experience and that just
    by thinking well one can do better than others who did the same thing
    year after year. I guess that attacking empirical knowledge puts you in a
    position which is against the majority of people’s system of thinking
    and it’s a dangerous position. What do you think? Why does a sentence
    have different value depending on who says it? Why my studies of
    scientific research are worthless?!? What is it so hard to understand?
    Why people have to be so violent when you’re trying to actually save
    them from making mistakes by trying transmit general principles, laws,
    for them?! They also reject my arguments because i base on theory and
    experimental research publications, but not on direct experience on the
    field: “you’re not doctor who has worked for 40 years”, “the best
    reputed doctors say the opposite”, “you’re just basing on words”. They
    think generally that scientific theories are words.

  63. Anonymous says:

    Gary,

    I was an Atkins adoptee 9-10 years ago and am now a fully paid-up member of the Taubes belief system. I thank you and eagerly await new developments in your thinking. I hope you know you are doing great work.

    As a man of science you might be delighted to know that there is an explanation and method of dealing with the behaviors you are observing. The body of knowledge builds upon a seminal work in the early 90s by Geoffrey Moore – “Crossing the Chasm” (no relation, no connection).

    Moore explored, explained and addressed the difficulties of persuading large numbers of people to change behavior. He also provided strategies which are now the conventional thinking in the world of marketing. Observe how we are persuaded to adopt radical new products (and foods and pharmaceuticals) at a rapid pace while so many arenas stagnate.

    Marketeers do not simply mount frontal assaults on belief systems, as you have been doing, for the very reasons you are experiencing. They “stage” the introduction of new ideas very carefully following the “adoption life cycle” described by Moore. The alternative is the usual fate of brave pioneers – arrows in the back! 

    Seems like you have a few. But please keep up the good work.

  64. Paula says:

     http://presentdiabetes.com/etalk/index.php?topicid=4592&commentAnchor=4618#4618 

    Saturated Fat Controversy/Debate (Triggered By My H.A.L.T. Acronym)
    keywords: saturated fat, heart disease, cholesterol, diet, atherosclerosisSection:  Nutrition

    About a week ago, I posted the entry below and it sparked a DEBATE….but many of you wouldn’t know this due to the title of the blog.  So I’m re-posting it under a different title and adding the 2 replies to date that take issue with SATURATED FAT ADDING TO ATHEROSCLEROSIS…My Original Post:As we all know, the statistics are alarming….approximately 66% of people with diabetes will die from CVD.  Reducing dietary saturated fat in this population to <7% of calories is now an evidence-based recommendation from both the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association in 2011 (*)    So WHY reduce saturated fat?  Here's why:H.A.L.T. Saturated Fat  H = Hardens cell membranesA = Adds to atherosclerosis in arteriesL = Leads to greater insulin resistance (both “H” and “A”)T = Triggers liver to make cholesterol (*) Evidence-Based Recommendation, American Dietetic Association, 2011 (Strong, and Imperative); Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, American Diabetes Association, 2011 Mary Ann Hodorowicz, RD, CDE, MBA, Certified Endocrinology Coder

  65. Paula says:

    Mary Ann Hodorowicz spouted the conventional wisdom on saturated fat, and got a little blow back! 
    (I suggested that instead of her “HALT” acronym against saturated fat, she go with “DEATHS” against sugar, as in “Don’t Eat All That Horrible Stuff.”)
     
    First, the comments against her stance (then her original post):
     
    http://presentdiabetes.com/etalk/index.php?topicid=4592&commentAnchor=4618#4618
     
     
    Mary Ann Hodorowicz, RD, CDE, MBA, Certified Endocrinology Coder
     
    Saturated Fat Controversy/Debate (Triggered By My H.A.L.T. Acronym)
    keywords: saturated fat, heart disease, cholesterol, diet, atherosclerosis
    Section:  Nutrition
     
    About a week ago, I posted the entry below and it sparked a DEBATE….but many of you wouldn’t know this due to the title of the blog.  So I’m re-posting it under a different title and adding the 2 replies to date that take issue with SATURATED FAT ADDING TO ATHEROSCLEROSIS…My Original Post:
    As we all know, the statistics are alarming….approximately 66% of people with diabetes will die from CVD.  Reducing dietary saturated fat in this population to <7% of calories is now an evidence-based recommendation from both the American Dietetic Association and the American Diabetes Association in 2011 (*)    So WHY reduce saturated fat?  Here's why:H.A.L.T. Saturated Fat
     
    H = Hardens cell membranes
    A = Adds to atherosclerosis in arteries
    L = Leads to greater insulin resistance (both “H” and “A”)
    T = Triggers liver to make cholesterol
     
    (*) Evidence-Based Recommendation, American Dietetic Association, 2011 (Strong, and Imperative); Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, American Diabetes Association, 2011

  66. Anonymous says:

    What I find surprising is that Stephan doesn’t think that
    insulin can have different effects in the CNS vs. other tissues.  Our nervous system neurotransmitters, such as
    acetylcholine (ACh) and norepinephrine (NE), are two examples of this phenomenon.  Both Ach and NE are excitatory in the CNS,
    but both can have either excitatory or inhibitory effects in peripheral
    organs/tissues (parasympathetic vs. sympathetic divisions of the autonomic
    nervous system).  Ach can stimulate
    skeletal muscle, while inhibiting cardiac muscle.  And NE can stimulate cardiac muscle, while
    inhibiting the digestive organs (such as in a fight/flight response).  The effects of a hormone or neurotransmitter
    depend on what the receptors for these molecules are coupled to (and thus the
    downstream signaling pathways and their ultimate effects can be different in
    different tissues). 

    As Peter at Hyperlipid wrote, insulin inhibits lipolysis in
    adipose tissue.  And, at the same time,
    decreases hunger in the brain. 

    Gary,
    thanks again for another stimulating post. 
    I look forward to reading more of your outstanding work.  

  67. Paul Hudson says:

    Does Jane Brody know that you, and the research and theories you chronicle, even exist?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/health/20brody.html?src=rechp

    Perhaps barely – there is a scant reference at the end of the article, and a seeming dismissal by the researchers.

  68. Gary, I can’t thank you enough for your persistence on this issue of getting science to change its paradigm. It will take time, but I am optimistic that a change has to take place because the current thinking just does not work…. as people everywhere struggle with excess fat. On a personal note, after reading WWGF and finally understanding the role of sugar and insulin, I dropped 35 pounds since January, and like Mark, without hunger and by not “dieting”.I just love starting my day with bacon and eggs!
    Karen

  69. Anonymous says:

    Hi Gary-I stumbled on an interview of you and your ideas in a Readers Digest article early this year.  Thus started the path to getting the old “me” back.  I’m a 54 y/o post menopausal woman who gradually put on that extra 20 lbs in the last few years. I know it doesn’t seem like much to alot of people, but I hated it.  I knew about the low carb approach to eating, but was getting my carb “fix” by eating “healthy” whole grain carbs thinking that somehow my body would treat them differently.  I have a very physically demanding occcupation (I am a horseshoer) and figured that level of physical exercise (don’t need a gym) would come to my rescue.  When I was younger, it did, and the weight would come off during the busy season.  The last couple of years the weight didn’t budge and I knew I had to do somethig different.  After reading the above mentioned article, I immediately changed how I ate and the pounds began to come off (even during the winter when I am not so physically active).  My cravings are gone and I don’t feel deprived at all.  I am 20 lbs lighter and at the weight I was as a young woman. It feels good to be “me” again.  I encouraged a good friend of mine (he’s 6’3′ and was 315lbs) to eat this way.  He’s lost over 50lbs this summer and still losing.   He feels like a new man and, like me, doesn’t feel deprived at all.  I’ve become a true fan, Gary.  Thanks for taking this “paradigm shift” on and hopefully alot of others will get themselves “back” as I did.

  70. Anonymous says:

    Shifting paradigms seems to have become a way of life for me, at least over the last 12 months. Having had stents fitted after a heart attack nearly 11 months ago I was left several months later wondering how the hell I was going to recover from feeling as though I was getting older by the day, piling on even more weight (I had gone up from about 15st 4lbs (214 pounds) to 16-2 (226 pounds)), forgetful and unable to concentrate. In the excess weight stakes I appreciate that I am relatively low, but never the less the same principles apply. The hospital (UK) had put me on 5 tablets a day and my local GP (doctor) had continued repeating the tablet prescription which of course included statins (Lipitor). To cut a long story short I asked my GP if he would help me come off at least the statins. “They are for life’ was his response. I had already started my own ‘lay’ research into the statins for I was aware of some controversy in their use. This I continued after my visit to the GP until I bought a number of books on cholesterol and saturated fats. The two seemed to go together but I eventually ended up at your ‘door’ Gary (I don’t know how many of these you read) and subsequently listened to the audio book of this title. Being armed with your research added considerably to what I had learnt from Barry Groves and initially Malcolm Kendrick (on cholesterol). Sufficiently so that I decide to take things into my own hands, reduce the statins and embark on a low carb regime and increasing my fats (especially saturated fats). You will appreciate at this point some pretty hefty life long beliefs being thrown out the window here. I had had another visit to my GP which had ended up a bit of a battle on the good advice stakes, resulting in my totally losing confidence – but leaving me feeling rather vulnerable to say the least. Belief in a doctors advice when your life? seemed at stake?? Shifting paradigms I would suggest. Your research has kept me hopeful during a difficult period. More than that. I have lost 27 pounds. I have lost the spasms of eczema which had bothered me for around 5 years. I am now far fitter, think more clearly and have embarked on a mission. 

    I also believe that forms of stress have a part to play in all this for if we were perfectly attuned with our bodies (which we are rarely) then we would naturally sense what was good for us. I know that this puts a ‘cat amongst the pigeons’ but this should surely be part of the research. There must be, a great deal more to this story to come. Many lives must be at stake!

    Geoff

  71. Anonymous says:

    The following is an article published on the Pennington Biomedical Research Institute  website in response to Gary’s Times article concerning Gary’s well repeated point that exercise in itself does not effectively reduce weight. It is Mr Bouchard who asked if Gary thought they (at the institute) were idiots. It is worth reprinting in part here because Mr Bouchard adequately demonstrates Gary’s point about where Mr Bouchard lives, his paradigm, from where he has great difficulty shifting even to the point where his own defence of his way of thinking does not stand up to the most cursory examination.. I offer no defence in appearing to attack Mr Bouchard for it is not him personally, but only his potentially damaging remarks. I am a supporter of us all for we are all on the same team on this earth

    Don’t Stop Exercising
    PBRC Executive Director Offers Correction to TIME Magazine Article

    The latest health news is a surprise: “Exercise won’t make you thin.” 

    That Time magazine cover story appeared following a visit by one of its reporters to our campus. So, I feel compelled to offer a correction to a story that drifted off course to the conclusion that exercise is not useful for weight loss and weight management. Granted, exercise and its benefits can be a complex story. Even our own scientists discuss the relative importance of eating less or exercising more to lose weight and keep it off. To use a journalistic term, these findings would make interesting “sidebars” to a main story. However, to conclude that exercise is “useless” in the management of body weight is sending an unhealthy message. Most scientific evidence based on animal and human studies shows that regular exercise is a critical component of weight loss and weight control. Right now, only about five-percent of the U.S. adult population meets the current national recommendation of 30 minutes of moderate intensity exercise five days a week, when exercise level is objectively measured. So any story that discourages exercise is counterproductive. The Time article raised three issues to incorrectly conclude exercise won’t help you lose weight. 

    First issue – eating less is really the only way to lose weight. Yes, it is obviously easier to eat less than to exercise more. But many individuals have successfully lost weight simply by increasing exercise. It can be done. The physiology is real. Bodies stay at the same weight when a caloric balance is achieved. Under controlled laboratory conditions we see that when the amount of calories eaten equals calories used by activity and exercise, then weight remains the same. Participants lose weight when they use more calories than they eat and gain weight when they eat more calories than they use up. That means the body doesn’t care whether it loses calories by eating less or exercising more, the response is the same; weight is lost. So a diet in which you cut 300 calories a day will have more or less the same effect as activity that expends 300 extra calories a day. So, it may be easier to reduce your calories by eating less than by exercising more, but this does not mean exercise is “useless.” In fact, we gain many other health benefits by exercising, like lower blood pressure and a healthier heart and cardiovascular system. 

    Second issue – people succumb to so-called dietary compensation, meaning that after exercising, we get hungry and eat more, or “reward” ourselves with a snack. The fact is that millions of regularly active people tend to be normal weight. They may eat more, but it equals their level of energy expenditure. For instance, elite athletes in physically demanding sports may consume on a regular basis more than 5,000 calories per day and yet be quite lean and muscular. For the general public, we should base the main message on the preponderance of the evidence, which says that if you exercise regularly you will increase your caloric intake to meet the demand of your physically active lifestyle. I know of no credible evidence demonstrating that people overindulge in food just because they engaged in a bout of exercise. Such people can undoubtedly be found, but it is a small minority among those who engage in exercise. In the aggregate, we know of no study that concludes exercise causes enough overeating to increase body weight and reverse the health benefits. However, we do know that appetite is typically depressed after a bout of vigorous exercise. As a matter of fact, regular exercise is one of the most efficient ways to help keep caloric intake at the right level for you.

    Final issue – those who exercise regularly may offset the effort by reducing their other daily activity and thus expend fewer calories than expected. This particular issue is complex as there are considerable individual differences in post exercise behavior. There are a few studies on both sides of this issue, but on balance more studies show that such compensation does not occur. Ironically just as the TIME issue came out, a group of researchers from Duke University published results showing daily exercise did not lead to a decrease in other activity for the remainder of the day. 

    Despite the confusion caused by the latest headline, we should rely on the vast majority of evidence that shows moderate activity or exercise should be part of any plan to lose weight, keep it off, and become healthier. 

    Claude Bouchard, Ph.D.
    Executive Director 1999-2010
    Pennington Biomedical Research Center
    Baton Rouge, LA 

  72. Warren Dew says:

    Thanks for the new post!  I am looking forward to parts 2 and 3.

    I think it’s at least as important to discuss these things in what the diet counterculture community,  if I can call it that, as to try to move the medical establishment.  Sociologically, I think a shift away from the current western diet will occur before your case gets proven – the evidence will mount, but before it is incontrovertible, the shift in mind share will have begun and accelerated to the point where it cannot be reversed.  At that point people will jump to one of the alternative paradigms and diets – one which will also be unproven in the rigorous sense.  That alternative will then become the new common wisdom, treated as fact without proof, and that alternative may never get proven either.

    For that reason, it’s important to have these discussions – and to examine the best evidence we have – sooner rather than later, because from a practical standpoint that’s what will affect what people will jump to when the current western diet is finally rejected.  Sure, our community – or communities – already know that a diet of doughnuts, fast food, and soft drinks is bad, but if we aren’t careful, the shift, when it comes, may be to a diet that’s just as bad, or even worse.  It probably won’t be a diet that as dependably causes obesity, but obesity is not the only bad thing that can happen to us.

    Also, as far as medical research is concerned, I think the problem is more basic than a paradigm.  The problem is that medical research isn’t done by people who are fundamentally scientists, it’s done by people who are fundamentally doctors.  The scientists are people like Cynthia Kenyon, running experiments on worms.  Some day they’ll get to humans, but it won’t be any decade soon.  Meanwhile, the folks in the medical establishment aren’t interested in the “whys”, they’re interested in developing treatments.

    I don’t think that’s going to be fixed any time soon – it would take a complete change not just to the medical research community, but to the entire health care system.  I do think you can get the medical establishment to see that their current recommendations are wrong, and to switch to some alternative, but to hold off on switching until they actually know which alternative is correct?  Not going to happen.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Thank you, thank you , thank you for this post on shifting paradigms and scientific inquiry (which also has to do with low carb).  There are a lot of scientific questions being debated today.  What you have to say is relevant to all of debates.  You lay out, in relatively non-technical language, how we, as lay people, should approach the process of deciding which scientists to listen to, what questions to ask and who to believe.   I most particularly appreciate the Feynman quote.  It reminds me of that old ad where the little old lady asks, “Where’s the beef?”.  If an hypothesis disagrees with observation it’s wrong.  What this discussion most especially highlights is that ordinary non-scientists need to educate themselves about the nature of scientific inquiry in order  and demand that scientists making claims for new hypotheses show them the “beef” before reaching conclusions about who is right and who is wrong and whose advice to follow.    

  74. Anonymous says:

    Gary, read both your books and really came to the conclusion of this blog post that this really all comes down to a huge paradigm shift and all that entails. I am a “progressive” pastor and have often struggled with the fact that my paradigm of Christian faith is soooooooooo different from traditional Christian faith(s) that it is hard for others to comprehend where I am coming from. Keep up the good work.
    Michael http://www.thatchurch.us in Kansas City

  75. intuition says:

    Thank you for this – I keep waiting for scientists to give a test group of people the exact same diet and exercise regimen under strictly controlled conditions and see what the result is over time.  I guarantee you that I would be one of those people to lose the least relative amount of weight in the group no matter what diet they gave me.  My mother, grandmother and great grand mother on my mother’s side were obese after menopause (despite the fact that my great grandmother was a poor immigrant to this country and went through menopause during the Great Depression when food was scarce and there was virtually no such thing as processed food to blame for it).  This was no coincidence or evidence of our lack of “discipline”.  I hear many women in their 50s complain that no amount of dieting and exercise is keeping them from gaining weight.  In addition to the hormonal changes during and post menopause there is the fact that muscle turns to fat and fat takes up more space.  I was very muscular when I was young because I was very athletic.  Now even being athletic isn’t helping.  I’d have to spend all day every day in the gym with a personal trainer to buck this tide plus eat nothing but raw vegetables.  Meanwhile when I was young I could sit on the couch all day and night and eat ice cream and fried foods every day and weigh barely 100 lbs. soaking wet (which I did for several years when I was in grad. school and I was not athletic then). Let’s face it, life is not fair.  Hopefully thanks to people like you, the emphasis on finding a CURE for this DISORDER will be found!  Let’s stop blaming the victims!

    • The Air Force did this within the last year with student pilots.  They controlled the diet and used  a diet high in fat, a low-fat diet, and a high protein low fat diet.  The pilots were on a diet for a week, which probably isn’t long enough. They used their results in the simulators to determine what was working and what wasn’t.  Worst diet was the high protein/low fat.  The high in fat was tops, with a low-fat diet next.  Reading Gary’s Why we are Fat book, I got a clue as to why the high protein/low fat diet was the worst. I look forward to Gary reviewing the study.

  76. Corey Barcus says:

    This is going to be really exciting! I’ve been a fan since I read Bad Science back in 1999/2000, so I can not wait for the next installments to this takedown, especially after looking at Guyenet’s arguments. I smell a BBQ….

  77. Anonymous says:

    Gary: just watched the you tube video (link provided in this blog post) to the Ohio State lecture and it appears to be cut short. Is there a way to see the end of your lecture?  

  78. Anonymous says:

    Gary: I just watched your lecture (link provided in this blog) given at Ohio State and it appears to have been cut short. Is there a way to see the remaining part of the talk?  I am so grateful for your work and find this so fascinating. As a nurse for many years I have witnessed first hand the striking increase in morbidly obese patients (my hospital system just proudly announced the acquisition of a CAT scan machine that will accommodate a 600 lb patient!), diabetes, and fatty liver disease (non-alcoholic).  We are a culture runamuck with regard to what constitutes a ‘healthy’ diet.  I frequently care for obese children. It is not uncommon to have a 140 lb 9 year old whose parents refer to their ‘big boy’ with pride.  Keep up the good work. Hillary

  79. Nate England says:

    I always like those 2-for-1 sales.  And, happily most of your writings give us three for one – some straight forward science, some history of science and then a critique of the quality of that science.
     
    Now, I understand why you called that question, are you calling us all idiots, important.  Scientists are people with families, desires, egos, etc.  And, you want to educate them even though many are not sure they need to be or can be educated by you.  Because part of my job is to do the same, I understand your diplomatic answer.  You don’t want to alienate anyone.  Otherwise, they go into an automatic defense mode and use their over powered brains to find fault with you and your arguments.   That’s tricky business.
     
    Even so, I would have preferred that you treat them like they treat us.  Their innuendo   that we are all lazy gluttons with little will power irritates me.  As my mother used to say to my father, especially concerning dirty dishes, what’s good for the goose is for the gander.  So, implying that those researchers are lazy and/or greedy third graders seems fair.  Besides they are being paid the big bucks to be good scientists. That of course should mean that they get above their egos and fears and put finding the truth first. (I’m still a little idealistic.)
     
    Maybe you could add the following to your response for the next time that question is asked.  “But on the other hand, that question is not important too much of my audience.  An obese young woman is not interested in whether a researcher thinks I’m calling him an idiot or not.  She cares about being dateless and developing diabetes and, of course, why can’t she lose any weight even though she tries desperately to follow the current medical advice.  She does not want to be told over and over again in many different ways about the first law of thermodynamics.  She knows that, already.  It is actually very simple.  So, to continuously imply that she is a liar or an idiot is not just insulting but cruel.  Not intentionally cruel, but more due to laziness and/or greed.”

  80. Anonymous says:

    People who can’t take the heat of healthy debate are ultimately just proselytizers of pet theories. My take on the history of change in human endeavors is that the majority of those vested in the old way of thinking will do/say anything to keep new ideas from emerging, ala Gallileo, et al.
    Very glad to see this latest posting!

  81. Anonymous says:

    Gary, you seem to be forgetting a couple of compelling reasons for the establishment to take your ideas seriously.

    #1 – it’s not as if their paradigm is working.  In fact, who the hell are THEY to think anybody should take THEM seriously, as well as their paradigm has performed as a blueprint for policy in the real world.

    #2 – i’t's not as if you have some wild idea that came from nowhere.  The carb/insulin connection with weight gain has been integral to pretty much every voice that opposes the establishment credo.  Barry Sears, Atkins, Mercola, Cordain all hit on it, though I’ve never seen it presented nearly as well as in WWGF.  As you have pointed out repeatedly it used to be the mainstream theory, and calories in / calories out was not considered credible.

    As far as whether you think they are idiots, that is a good question.  To miss the mark so far with all the evidence available (and ignored), all the time and treasure spent, yes, it’s a very good question.

  82. Anonymous says:

    I think the food reward hypothesis is  outright wrong, just as Gary does.  I really do.

  83. Razwell says:

    I know several obese people who eat a very bland diet and the same thing everyday. The food reward hypothesis just does not  represent reality.

    • Paula says:

      Maybe I’m simple, but a simple thought keeps occurring to me in this “food palatability” argument.  It has to do with the body essentially BEING or quickly BECOMING what it eats. 

      Take for instance our yearly move to the lake every summer, when I was young.  There was a LOT of iron in the water at the cabin and it tasted horrible.  More horrible than you can imagine.  Also made the clothes orange if one didn’t use a water softener.  BUT!!!  We knew from experience that in 4 days, we wouldn’t taste the water anymore.  Not at all.  And we didn’t.

      Aside from the science of it (for which we are so greatly indebted to Taubes’ research of the research), isn’t “food palatability” pretty much THAT?  We are what we eat?  (Sorry, I hate that cliche formulation…)  But the thought keeps coming to me that What if it’s as simple as that?  Just as an alcoholic doesn’t feel RIGHT until he has his alcohol, and a carb junkie is relieved to consume his carbs. 

      “Food palatability” — WHAT?!?  That’s a total aside from figuring out what is good for us.

  84. Just curious on thoughts on this recent study about Saturated Fat & Type 2 Diabetes: http://www.endocrineweb.com/news/type-2-diabetes/7266-new-study-explains-why-different-types-fat-have-different-health-effects

  85. Jordan Pine says:

    Hi Gary. Big fan of your work. Most people are impressed that I read GC,BC — the entire book — before the shorter, more reader-friendly version was available! Anyway, I have two questions for you and the group …

    The first: Are you aware of a Nov. 2010 report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1712/1626) that found “over the past several decades, average mid-life body weights have risen among primates and rodents living in research colonies, as well as among feral rodents and domestic dogs and cats”? The authors conclude that the ”consistency of these findings among animals living in varying environments, suggests the intriguing possibility that the aetiology of increasing body weight may involve several as-of-yet unidentified and/or poorly understood factors (e.g. viral pathogens, epigenetic factors).” My question: Might your new paradigm provide a different explanation? If so, how so?

    The second: In debates on this topic (old paradigm vs. new) with a friend who lives in Hong Kong, I often hear the following counter-argument: “A billion Chinese eat rice daily, yet you rarely see a fat Chinese person.” What do you make of that argument?

  86. Jordan Pine says:

    Hi Gary. Big fan of your work. Most people are impressed that I read GC,BC — the entire book — before the shorter, more reader-friendly version was available! Anyway, I have two questions for you and the group …

    The first: Are you aware of a Nov. 2010 report in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/278/1712/1626) that found “over the past several decades, average mid-life body weights have risen among primates and rodents living in research colonies, as well as among feral rodents and domestic dogs and cats”? The authors conclude that the ”consistency of these findings among animals living in varying environments, suggests the intriguing possibility that the aetiology of increasing body weight may involve several as-of-yet unidentified and/or poorly understood factors (e.g. viral pathogens, epigenetic factors).” My question: Might your new paradigm provide a different explanation? If so, how so?

    The second: In debates on this topic (old paradigm vs. new) with a friend who lives in Hong Kong, I often hear the following counter-argument: “A billion Chinese eat rice daily, yet you rarely see a fat Chinese person.” What do you make of that argument?

    • Anonymous says:

      Standard lab-rat chow contains ingredients that would not normally be part of their diet–e.g., soy. Likewise, much dog and cat food contains soy, corn, wheat, and rice. Feral rodents congregate where there is human food waste–that is, they eat what we eat.

  87. Razwell says:

    Gary is one of the very best writers  out there- rare gift. It’s nice  to see that his ideas are being broadcast to the masses. Hopefully , more of the medical establishment will read these articles and other excellent blogs.To makr progress they must keep an open mind and be as non dogmatic as possible.

  88. I read WWGF last May (it is now October). I am a type 1 Diabetic and I have not only lost nearly 35 pounds, but my BG numbers have been amazing. I asked my Dr. to read this book, but have not heard whether or not he did. I will NEVER eat all those carbs again. I love the way I look, feel and tell everyone who asks how I did it. My youngest daughter is a nurse and her roommate is a nutritionist. She is skeptical, but says she will read the book….You rock and I hope you pass all these letter along to people in the medical industry who are ridiculously stuck in their own tracks!!!! THANK YOU!!!
    Sue Tucker

  89. Anonymous says:

    Read GCBC and WWGF in November 2010.  Started some carb reduction on Thanksgiving Day!  Went full on low-carb in December 2010.  Lost 75 lbs. so far, cholestoral down 20 pts, blood pressure down 15-20 points on both sides and continue to lose 1-2 lbs per week.  Wife went low carb with me in January, lost 35 lbs. also lowered chol and BP, she’s now at her target weight. 

    Don’t care what any of the dissenters say.  Mr. Taubes is right.  I have battled weight my entire 49 years, until I read GCBC.  Have lost weight before (3 times) with “conventional wisdom” and was miserable, unhealthy, and hungry all the time.  And always put it back on.  I have shared the books with others and even bought additional copies to share.  All have had the same results.  I am so thankful for Mr. Taubes work, it has changed my life for the better.  All the males in my family have developed insulin resistance and are on one type of medication or another for it.  I believe that GCBC will allow me to avoid this fate.   

  90. Paula says:

    “Since the mid-1980s, Sniderman has been arguing that Apo-B  (the protein component of low and very low density lipoproteins) is a far better predictor of heart disease, which it surely is, than the cholesterol that happens to be contained in these lipoproteins.”

    Take a look at ApoB in this diagram of LDL!  (Found it on Hyperlipid’s blog just now).  One per particle.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9831/figure/A2023/

  91. Jesse Barnes says:

    Mr. Taubes, I wish you’d blog more regularly.  I love the articles you post and publish here and elsewhere, but I’m also curious to hear about what you’re reading and what’s on your mind.  Short notes about that would be much appreciated, and give us more food for thought between your in depth posts.  Thanks.

  92. Meagan says:

    It would have been funny and appropriate, if when asked whether Gary thought the phds and mds were idiots, he had said, no, I think they are mentally lazy. Because that is the real truth. Instead he chose to be diplomatic, and I can’t blame him, as the egos in the room would never have even given him the time of day unless he sugar coated the truth. The reality is that they rested on their laurels. They believe they have arrived and no longer need to scrutinize and question their beliefs, even in the face of their theories failing to work. Their greatest motivation is not to discover the truth and the answer to the obesity and diabetes catastrophy that is getting worse by the day, but to tow the line of the status quo, so as not to jeopardize their careers, reputations, etc., by bucking those who either can’t or won’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.

  93. Paula says:

    RE:  Meagan’s comment re the PhDs, MDs, etc. who “…rest on their laurels, [believing] they have arrived and no longer need to scrutinize and question their beliefs, even in the face of their theories failing to work” –

    HERE’S TOLSTOY:
     
    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
     
    From “What Is Art and Essays on Art” by Leo Tolstoy – quoted by physicist Joseph Ford in Chaotic Dynamics and Fractals (1985) edited by Michael Fielding Barnsley and Stephen G. Demko
     
    FYI — I ran into the quote on Prof. Richard D. Feinman’s blog, in the comments to his blogpost on the movie Money Ball’s similarity to the current diet controversies.
    http://rdfeinman.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/the-nutrition-mess-lessons-from-moneyball/#comments

  94. Paula says:

    NEW INTERVIEW WITH GT:

    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/12/the-big-fat-lie.aspx

    “Host Angelo Coppola talks with best-selling author Gary Taubes (Good Calories, Bad Calories & Why We Get Fat). They discuss Gary’s early work, science, carbs, exercise, the Ancestral Health Symposium, and much more”

  95. Razwell says:

    Gary Taubes’ biggest critic is perhaps Internet chrlatan Anthony Colpo.

     Well, Colpo displayed his ignorance about women and heart disease. Women ages 35- 44 are NOT protected from heart disease. In fact,  it is on the rise, and has been for a while now . It is worrisome. Women die of  heart disease more than all cancers combined. More women die of heart disease than men. And when young women get it, their  outcomes are  usually much worse than men.

    My point being Colo is a crackpot whose information is NOT credible. He is giving you information from MANY, MANY DECADES back that we now know is out and out WRONG.

    So who is Colpo  ( and his other misinformed guru henchman)  to attack Gary Taubes and Dr. Michael Eades?

    I just wanted to say this to debunk the credibility of an uneducated Internet charlatan from Australia……..

  96. Howard Lee Harkness says:

    I have a blog on diet myself, and I am fully aware of the time requirement to write a long, well-researched article like this one, but I sure do wish you would publish more often! I would suggest occasionally doing a much shorter article just to let us know that you are still ok. BTW, I’m looking forward to meeting you on the May Low-Carb Cruise.

  97. Paula says:

    From a Bill Lands’ paper from 2005 (title at end):
     
    Overview
     
    “The proportion of n-3 acids among the 20- and 22-carbon highly unsaturated fatty acids (HUFA) of tissues can vary from 20 to 80 percent depending on voluntary food choices of individuals. Such food choices are the origin of essential n-3 and n-6 HUFA in the tissues of humans. This review describes how my research on membrane lipids led me to believe that Americans should eat more n-3 (omega-3) and less n-6 (omega-6) fats.”
     
    BILL LANDS — ONE OF THE PLAIN SPOKEN.
    What I really appreciate about figures like Gary Taubes, Prof. Richard D. Feinman (has a hilarious blog!), and William E. M. Lands, PhD, is that they are plain spoken because what they have discovered makes sense, and therefore, one clear thought/explanation leads to another.
    AND they write plain-spoken books/medical papers!!! For an example of a plain-spoken and very funny medical paper (and it’s recent), Google fads diets in the treatment of diabetes feinman and go down a few entries and open the PDF — his full paper. Plain spoken and very very funny. You can imagine what diet he considers the “fad” — hint: it’s not the Atkins)
    BILL LANDS’  THEORIES:Not to take attention away from seminal role of insulin (I don’t think Bill Lands’ theories contradict GT’s analyses), but I’ve recently started reading things about and by Bill Lands (and watching him on YouTube). He is the Daddy of the Omega-3 v. Omega-6 theory from waaaay back, and I find myself finding the subject fascinating. Not sure how Omega-3 v. Omega-6 ties in with the insulin issue, but you be the judge — It may be secondary: something one should take NEXT into account AFTER getting off flour and sugar!!!  In other words, my reading regarding  Omega-3 v. Omega-6 says Cut way down on the peanut butter folks, and dig INTO that wild-caught SALMON! Got myself some huge full-fish pieces of wild-caught salmon at WALMART of all places, frozen salmon which claims to be sustainable and was mighty good cooked up in Dr. Eades’ Sous Vide Supreme!NOW  MORE BILL, PLAIN SPOKEN (this is another part of the paper named at end):
    How People Die
    “Describing my concerns at an international conference in Japan on nutrition in cardio-cerebrovascular diseases led me to show a figure linking two preventable dietary imbalances that cause fatal outcomes (Lands, 1993). An animated, updated version of this figure now appears at the distance learning website

    “The figure indicates how two easily prevented imbalances create mediators of morbidity and mortality, how selected medications intervene and HOW PLASMA CHOLESTEROL IS A DISTAL ASSOCIATIVE BIOMARKER OF THE IMBALANCED PROCESSES RATHER THAN A MEDIATOR OF THE VASCULAR INJURY AND THE FATAL EVENTS. There is a tendency for some people to neglect known transient mediators or to attribute a mediator role to an associated biomarker. This trend is evident in the lack of mention of THE HARMFUL ROLE OF NON-ESTERIFIED FATTY ACIDS [Paula: Explanation of "esterification" from p. 387 of GCBC: Triglycerides are too big to get INTO fat cells from the blood, or to get OUT of fat cells back into the blood. They have to be turned into free fatty acids to make the trip either direction. "Esterification" is when free fatty acids turn back into triglycerides after having entered INTO the fat cells from the blood, or after having slipped OUT of the fat cells back into the blood] THAT ARE RELEASED IN PLASMA that are released in plasma whenever there is increased circulation of VLDL, which also gives much-discussed plasma LDL biomarkers. “The trend also includes a lack of mention of the harmful role of prenylated proteins in signaling processes during an increased formation of isoprenoids, which also gives much-discussed plasma cholesterol biomarkers. “The animated figure attempts to remind readers of the mediators involved. “Neglect of these mediators has continued for decades, while continued promotion of excess intakes of food and n-6 fats gave greater transient mediators of postprandial oxidative stress, vascular injury and death.”The long sequence of enzyme-catalyzed events between food ingestion, post-prandial endothelial inflammation and injury, plaque accumulation, thrombosis, ischemia, arrhythmia and death involves transient changes in many mediators that are difficult to monitor in large clinical trials. Each mediator along the way sets the stage for the downstream mediators to act, and all have causal roles. The overwhelming evidence that THE ORIGINS OF HEART ATTACKS BEGIN IN CHILDREN and progressively accumulate with time (Strong et al., 1999) has not yet mobilized effective preventive interventions.”Prevention of harm comes from decreasing the true causal mediators (especially the most upstream ones) (Paula: i.e. changing what we EAT) rather than the distal biomarkers indirectly associated with the mediators. Long experience in interpreting roles for membrane lipids urges caution in attributing causal roles to often-discussed markers when seldom-discussed attributes may be true mediators of the event being evaluated. Scientists need to see the details of how things occur if they plan to prevent the occurrences. Unfortunately, stories about associated markers sometimes gain political attention and divert resources away from preventing the true mediators.”
    From:
    J. Membrane Biol. 206, 75-83 (2005)
    DOI: 10.1007/s00232-005-0785-0Full paper is entitled:
    Learning how Membrane Fatty Acids Affect Cardiovascular Integrity

  98. Razwell says:

    I just had been reading through all of the comments and I think that out of all the blogs out there, this one has the best , most detailed discussions going. If science is to move forward and learn more about body fat regulation, the ideas expressed here will help contribute to it. And this is what we need. Challenging mainstream dogma and testing hypotheses, including our own etc.

    Gary is a great guy and Stephan is very nice to. They are both worthy of respect in the scientific community, and both have mine. But ,I do lean toward an alternative hypothesis other than food reward. I got pretty lean this year eating the food I love – which are generally lower in carbs. I can honestly say that I did not eat anything I did not like since about February. But, keep in mind, I never was obese , nor have the genes. I am lucky to have it easy.

    Gary, Dr. Jeffrey Friedman , and Stephan Guyenet are pointing closer to the truth. Their collective efforts are going to help us make progress. That is ehat my research has led me to conclude. Obesity must be actively fought and conquered with many years of good quality research . Hopefully , we will get there. Great research turns up new questions. :)

  99. Gary,
    I loved your book and your open-minded, honest, intellectual pursuits. Your book is the only one that explained the body types in my family to me(2 are lean 2 are heavy–same exact lifestyle). Since reading I have been about to adjust the diets accordingly and voila! You have helped us enormously. Thank you so much and keep on. People are generally so fixed in their assumptions, to their own detriment.

  100. payasoinfeliz says:

    lizzie velasquez: eats thousands of calories per day, cannot gain weight beyond 60lbs in her 20s. calories in-calories out? she eats a variety of palatable foods. palatability? nah, i dont think so.

  101. Mike Ellwood says:

    Those who lump Gary Taubes and Dr Robert Lustig in the same category should be aware that Dr Robert Lustig does not actually subscribe (so far as I am aware) to the idea of low-carb as being a suitable dietary approach to the current problem of obesity.

    In addition, Dr Lustig seems to give fruit a “free pass”, even though it contains fructose, on the grounds that the fiber in the fruit supposedly slows down absorption of the fructose.

    What GT and RL have in common, is that they think that sugar, and in particular fructose, is the primary evil in the story of the current obesity crisis.

  102. Mary Kolk says:

    This is awesome! Thank you, Gary for this incredible blog. Dr. Marsh at Ohio State University asked me to tell our story before your lecture at Ohio State University. I told the story of how a low carb diet changed my husband’s life from one of a literally slowly dying diabetic to one of a vibrant, energetic man. My husband and I give lectures and seminars in as many venues as we can to spread the word about low carbs and diabetes. It is never easy because we encounter a tremendous amount of people “living within the energy balance paradigm”. Sometimes I even doubt myself. Then I look at my husband, read your books and Dr. Bernstein’s books realize that it’s not me that’s wrong. So thank you, again and again. Looking very forward to your next post here.

  103. Mike Ellwood says:

    Well, I read Stephan Guyenet’s article including the supposed “falsifications” of the “Carbohydrate Hypothesis” and the many comments. I’ll leave the “falsifications” to others, but the weakest part of the whole article is right at the end, where he grudgingly admits that a low-carb diet can be effective “for some people”, but puts it down to …. wait for it …. because it reduces the calories!

    What he fails to explain is how so many low-carbers, including myself, succeed in reducing calories (if indeed that is what we are doing, and he’s making a pretty big assumption), on high-fat, moderate protein, low-carb, without feeling hungry in between meals, and can often go down to 2 or even one meal a day, without snacks. IF he can explain it, he does not actually explain it, whereas Gary has given a perfectly plausible explanation in GC, BC, of how this could work.

    And I now read in another SG blog posting:
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/10/losing-fat-with-simple-food.html#more
    “Losing Fat With Simple Food– Two Reader Anecdotes”
    [...]
    Stephan says that the experience of the two readers was that they reduced calories naturally due to reduced appetite (supposedly through reduced reward). Actually, one of them had a raving hunger for 10-14 days in the beginning, controlled by will-power alone (not something that low-carbers typically experience). One of the reader’s diets was “relatively low in carbohydrates” (Kamal). Guess which reader DIDN’T get the hunger pangs?

    On a different tack, I notice that Stephan has now “banned” the blogger and frequent commenter “Itsthewoo2″, claiming she had insulted him and other bloggers and posters.

    It’s true she was verbose and over-the-top, and had strong opinions. I haven’t read all her comments, but I don’t remember any insults. But she had some interesting things to say, and (in another thread) gave a fascinating insight into the leptin story (she had taken part in a controlled trial of leptin). She didn’t agree with the idea that leptin was the dominant hormone in obesity. I think Stephan’s banning of her was a sign of weakness and not strength, and the timing of it is interesting. It seems like he just doesn’t like being challenged.

  104. What strikes me about the researcher’s response to Gary at Pennington is that it clearly shows that he would rather feel right, and let people continue to suffer, than risk being wrong, and help those who his research is supposed to be benefiting. It’s all very well to debate the shift in paradigm that Gary is championing, yet the moon and sun go on, unaffected, whether we understand our relationship to them or not. In this drama, however, actual real-life people endure painful physical and emotional consequences from their continuing failure to permanently change their weight, mislead however unintentionally by “scientists” who, apparently, would prefer to continue proving their own superiority rather than check their assumptions. Very disappointing.

  105. P.S. My edition of GCBC isn’t printed in crayon…was that a later printing? :o )

  106. Katie says:

    Thanks, Gary. Your and others like you have changed my life for the better. Thanks for the information that allowed me to try restricting carbohydrates. Before you, I thought I’d literally die or have kidney failure if I did. Now, after 2 years of a mostly ketogenic diet, I see the “experts” had no clue what they were talking about.

    Thank you for showing me the way to optimum health!

  107. Steve Atkin says:

    Been doing no carbs for 6 weeks now (just a few blueberries and dried cherries in protein shake in the morning) but suffering some chronic bouts of fatigue – any thoughts. One incredible result all inflammation gone after years of swollen joints and NO gout – whew.

  108. [url=http://angry-birds-space-info.com/]Angry Birds Space Info[/url]
    [url=http://angry-birds-space-info.com/download-angry-birds-space/]Free Download Angry Birds Space[/url]
    [url=http://angry-birds-space-info.com/type-of-birds/]Type of birds Angry Space[/url]

  109. Jon says:

    1. Gastric bypass operations change brain activity.
    2. Fetuses that are nutritionally deprived predict children disposed to being fat 10 years later.

    In such cases palatability would seem to be regulated by hormonal systems.

  110. yoyonoob says:

    Hi all,
     
    My name is Yohan I moved to France for 1 years for professional reasons ..
    This is a few weeks I read your forum daily and sincerely congratulation, the administrator has done an excellent job!
    I’ll do my best to give as much as what you have learned.

  111. AressSweara says:

    I am late-model,desire you a advantageous daytime!

  112. When some one searches for his essential thing, so he/she
    needs to be available that in detail, so that thing is maintained over here.

  113. Immegesap says:

    [b] orderl ciprofloxacin USA [/b]
    [url=http://where-can-you-purchase-buy-ciloxan.webs.com ] buying ciprofloxacin online [/url]
    moxifloxacin ciprofloxacin
    [url=http://ordercheap-ciloxan-in-usa.webs.com ] order cheap ciprofloxacin In USA [/url]
    non prescription Ciloxan in Wuppertal
    [url=http://buyingciprofloxacin.webs.com ] buy cheapest generic ciprofloxacin overnight [/url]
    Quieres saber donde comprar Ciloxan online tabs in Kungalv
    [url=http://cheapest-place-to-buy-buy-ciloxan-online.webs.com ] purchase cheap ciprofloxacin In USA [/url]
    cheap Ciloxan fedex overnight at Llandysul
    Could be allergies, could be infectious. see your doctor you may need antibiotics for the eyes.

    [url=http://buy-ciloxan-online-usa.webs.com ] orderl ciprofloxacin [/url]
    meilleur endroit pour acheter Ciloxan 120 mg ingen tidligere resept Dresden
    You can just buy whatever drugs you want to otc in china? interesting.
    [url=http://buying-ciloxan-usa.webs.com ] buy cheap buy ciprofloxacin online [/url]
    ciprofloxacin er 500 mg uses
    [url=http://buying-ciloxan-no-prescription.webs.com ] buy cheap ciprofloxacin in Australia [/url]
    best price Ciloxan discount at LA
    [url=http://cheap-ciloxan-no-prescription-buy.webs.com ] buy cheapest ciprofloxacin [/url]
    billig generisk Ciloxan online inget medlemskap Stockton
    A funky wal-mart eye doctor gave me an infection i’v been struggling with for a year. i know b/c i got bad symtoms a week after. i went to another doctor, who treated me with steroid cream saying it was fungal, not an infection. he even had me see a derm, who wanted a skin graph (!!)
    [url=http://buy-ciloxan-online-usa.webs.com ] purchase ciprofloxacin online cheap [/url]
    ciprofloxacin zithromax

    [b] generic ciprofloxacin In USA buy online [/b]

  114. むかう [url=http://www.japanlouboutinjp.com/ ]ルブタン サイズ [/url]それくらい サーティ
    ちゅうよう せきにん [url=http://www.jpchristianlouboutinjp.com/ルブタン-メンズ-靴-セール-2.html ]ルブタン スニーカー [/url]かけっこ ようが コマーシャル アート
    ハーモニー たな [url=http://www.japanmarcbymarcjacobs.com/products_all.html ]マークジェイコブス iphoneケース [/url]くりいろ えんだい
    じゅうけいしょう さがく [url=http://www.marcbymarcjacobsoutlets.com/マーク-バッグ-リュック-セール-9_13.html ]マークジェイコブス 靴 [/url]ろうじんふくしでんわ つつそで
    リオ [url=http://www.marcbymarcjacobssalejp.com/ ]marc jacobs 時計 [/url]せんが きも うちべんけい

  115. PlopeSeew says:

    [url=http://www.paulsmithjpshow.com]ポールスミス時計[/url]

  116. For newest information you have to pay a quick visit web
    and on world-wide-web I found this site as a finest web page for
    latest updates.

  117. meteo.gov.ua says:

    Thanks for one’s marvelous posting! I really enjoyed reading it, you are a great author.I will be sure to bookmark your blog and will often come back sometime soon. I want to encourage you continue your great posts, have a nice holiday weekend!

  118. Fastidious answers in return of this difficulty with genuine arguments and telling
    the whole thing about that.

  119. I’m extremely pleased to find this great site. I want to to thank you for your time for this particularly fantastic read!! I definitely really liked every bit of it and I have you saved to fav to see new things on your blog.

  120. I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It’s pretty worth enough for
    me. In my view, if all web owners and bloggers made
    good content as you did, the internet will be much more useful than
    ever before.

  121. Its like you learn my mind! You appear to grasp a lot about this,
    such as you wrote the e book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few percent to power the message home a bit, however other
    than that, that is fantastic blog. A great read.
    I will definitely be back.

  122. Aw, this was an exceptionally good post. Finding the time and actual effort
    to generate a good article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a whole lot and don’t seem to get anything done.

  123. Hi, I do think this is a great site. I stumbledupon it ;) I will revisit yet
    again since i have bookmarked it. Money and freedom is the greatest way to change, may you be rich and continue to
    help other people.

  124. Shirley says:

    This inactive/active life style allows the phage to cleverly separate its outbreaks over long periods of timeCookies are small data files which are sent to your browser (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome etc) from a website you visit”I just put too much pressure on myself,” she said Compton’s omission is a clear indication that the selectors have decided to move on “Our partnership with Palo Alto Networks combines the application visibility and control of Net Optics’ Intelligent Network Access technology with Palo Alto Networks ability to accurately identify and control applications regardless of port or protocol and without sacrificing performanceLeave your pet at home this 4th of July”Jackson, I hate you for what you did to my family,” said Andrea Huntley, the victim’s sister It is a very exciting topic, but few nonscience newspapers even mention it at Newsquestowned dailies The Press, York, and the Telegraph Argus, Bradford, have taken industrial action over the ongoing freeze

  125. Wow that was strange. I just wrote an extremely long comment but after I clicked submit
    my comment didn’t show up. Grrrr… well I’m not writing all that over again.
    Anyhow, just wanted to say great blog!

  126. I got this web page from my buddy who told me regarding this website
    and at the moment this time I am browsing
    this web site and reading very informative posts at
    this place.

  127. I have been browsing online more than three hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours.

    It is pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the
    internet will be a lot more useful than ever before.

  128. You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find
    this matter to be actually something that I think I would never understand.
    It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
    I’m looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!

  129. youtube says:

    I was wondering if you ever thought of changing the page layout of your
    blog? Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.

    But maybe you could a little more in the
    way of content so people could connect with it better.

    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  130. I read this piece of writing completely on the topic of the resemblance of hottest and previous technologies,
    it’s amazing article.

  131. Hello, i believe that i saw you visited my site thus i came to return the prefer?.I’m attempting to in finding issues to
    enhance my web site!I assume its adequate to make use of a
    few of your ideas!!

  132. I am extremely inspired along with your writing skills as well as with the
    structure to your blog. Is this a paid subject or did you modify it your self?
    Either way stay up the nice quality writing, it is uncommon
    to look a great blog like this one nowadays..

  133. Hi my family member! I want to say that this article is awesome,
    great written and include approximately all vital infos.

    I would like to peer more posts like this .

  134. Украина анализ 3ipka.net

    В Украине сходные оценки за удельным
    весом передовых технологий в экономической динамике с начала реформ представлены фрагментарно.

    Научно-технологическое эволюция отдельной страны обусловливается, прежде всего, действующими в ней приоритетами,
    средствами их достижения, которые
    измеряются результатами и масштабом их использования.
    При формировании ориентиров научно-технического развития для создания перспективного производственно-технологического потенциала значительную
    роль играет государственная научно-техническая политика,
    который разрабатывается в рамках стратегии
    национального и межэтническая развития
    (например, Европейский Союз).
    Механизм конкурентной борьбы на внутреннем и внешнем рынках заставляет компании формировать
    стратегии развития с употреблением передовых достижений
    собственной и мировой науки.

    Одним из важных компонентов
    поддержки ресурсо-инновационной стратегии есть твердый отбор технологий на
    уровне государства, которые составляют базис осуществлении стратегических интересов национальной экономика.
    Для этого потребуется создать специальный орган,
    который воплотит в жизнь постоянный мониторинг состава
    разрабатываемых, созданных и используемых технологий, а на
    него основе осуществлять как контроль экспорта технологий, который исключает передачу стратегически важных и новейших
    украинских технологий в другие государства, так и контроль по импорту технологий, который учитывает
    защиту внутренних рынков от некачественных,
    вредных, отсталых технологий и продукции, в т.ч.
    импортных.

    Отношение власти к науки
    Правительство формирует и реализует свою политику,
    опираясь на результаты науки.

    Наука не является основой формирования государственной политики.
    Доля бюджетных ассигнований в
    финансировании инновационных работ.

    Для перехода отечественной экономики к
    активному инновационному созреванию необходимая общегосударственная поддержка
    освоению новационных технологий.
    Государственную поддержку в освоении должны получить
    только те технологии, которые явным образом лучше существующих и синхронно
    имеют многоцелевой, многоотраслевой характер употребления, а технико-экономические характеристики за всеми показателями превосходят отечественные аналоги.

    такой вид поддержки возможно делать через конструирование Государственной целевой программы, финансированной чем счет бюджетных
    денег.

  135. Hey there! Do you use Twitter? I’d like to follow you if that
    would be ok. I’m absolutely enjoying your blog and look forward to new updates.

  136. Have you ever considered about adding a little bit more than just your
    articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything.
    Nevertheless think of if you added some great photos or
    video clips to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is
    excellent but with images and videos, this blog could definitely be one of the best in its niche.
    Terrific blog!

  137. I’m not sure where you’re getting your info, but good topic.

    I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more.
    Thanks for wonderful info I was looking for this information for my mission.

  138. Watching live basketball games online has never been more available.
    Once you achieve the required threshold in 4 out of 6 of these paths, you
    can declare that the current round is the last one.
    In Seaside, the cards are based loosely around the naval and oceanic
    themes, with card effects representing the ideas of exploration, colonization, pirates and treasure maps.

  139. free says:

    Today, I went to the beach with my kids. I found a
    sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the
    shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched
    her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!

  140. Great blog here! Also your site loads up very fast! What web host are
    you using? Can I get your affiliate link to your host?
    I wish my site loaded up as fast as yours lol

  141. I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills and also with the layout
    on your blog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself?
    Either way keep up the nice quality writing, it is
    rare to see a nice blog like this one nowadays.

  142. omindignide says:

    hcg drops

  143. omindignide says:

    hcg

  144. Nice blog here! Also your site rather a lot up fast! What web host are you using?
    Can I am getting your affiliate hyperlink to your host?
    I desire my website loaded up as fast as yours lol

  145. narkier says:

    Fine way of describing, and good article to take information concerning my presentation subject, which
    i am going to convey in institution of higher education.

  146. put-down says:

    I constantly emailed this blog post page to all my associates, as if like to read it then my friends will too.

  147. Someone necessarily lend a hand to make severely posts I
    would state. That is the very first time I frequented your web page and to this point?
    I surprised with the research you made to make this actual submit
    amazing. Wonderful process!

  148. Well, this is possible because of the internet.Wal-Mart is one of the largest retailers in America.There are many safety glasses available in the market that can protect against work hazards, including eye injuries from flying bits of glass or metal, chemicals in the air and harmful radiation.Something that will not upset the stomach is of course recommended.Just browse at once.This style of sandal doesn’t go out of style, plus, they’re comfortable.In todays busy world, people are short of time.Quaint and quiet, with a large balcony overlooking a charming pedestrian street, this Cannes Rental is a great value and wonderful place to spend your time in Cannes and the South of France.

  149. bikenge.ga says:

    obviously like your web-site however you need to check the spelling
    on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to tell the truth then again I will surely
    come back again.

  150. your results are not surprising at all and I sure hope Dr. Oz takes the time to take a look at it and I would be curious to see how it compares with his own results! =)

  151. Another entertaining party game using a space design is Find World.
    Increase value for the life of the child by taking them to these stores once in
    a little while. Why do they similar to this
    type of free online games for females?

  152. By the end of thie week of coaching you should have
    created your personal application. Chat fingers free and headset free on your Iphone whilst driving.
    You can actually appear for this plan on
    the web.

  153. Itis about delayed gratification: stopping anything you’ve mastered to savor for anything much
    better! Share your worries with your partner, your doctor, your
    pastor.

  154. Stanton says:

    the goal is to try to start the surprise the fastest, without
    acquiring the mittens off. So how do these kind of individuals always be achieved?
    They are able to create their animals perform
    and earn virtual money.

  155. It measures nearly as big as the 7-inch Universe Nexus 7, that’s generally confirmed while the
    reigning mini tablet. I am better in my function and I do
    not get annoyed. Itis that which you do with that time that counts!

  156. Otherwise, you’re selected to crash within your pencil portrait drawing energy.
    Itis an instrument of development that every thinking person must strive for expertise in. All this must be done in a painterly manner.

  157. I don’t understand this article… You should check http://www.redsn0w.us/ for more
    details

  158. This is a loan provision that requires you to pay a fee if you pay off your loan early.
    Especially if they need help finding realistic small
    business finance options, this is a critical issue for most
    commercial borrowers. While many lending institutions will allow you to take into consideration rental payments, they will only do this as
    a percentage of what the projected rent is.

  159. Hi there! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading through this post reminds me of my old room mate!
    He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this
    article to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read.
    Thanks for sharing!

  160. HealthCalc XL – Apparently, it’s great for your
    wellbeing and conditioning. There came the iPad 2, sleeker, thinner,
    faster, and truly, a picture. In the mean time I welcome your comments, concerns and suggestions.

  161. goddess nike says:

    Excellent way of describing, and nice post to get facts regarding my presentation topic, which i am going to deliver in school.

  162. Jeanette says:

    Next, you have to go to Solutions and seek out the “Shell Hardware Detection” region. One-Of best manipulations is
    accessing the Cydia software store.

  163. Amazing! Thiss blog looks just like my old one!
    It’s on a completely different topic but itt has pretty much the same layout and design. Excellent choice of colors!

  164. shoes review says:

    What’s up, just wanted to say, I enjoyed this post. It was funny.
    Keep on posting!

  165. Unless the buyer is a super whiz kid when it comes to computers, maybe simple is better for the novices.
    They stock the very latest laptops from IBM, Dell, Compaq, E-machines, Toshiba and more.
    They are looking for good deals on electronic parts.

  166. Hello there! I know this is somewhat off topic but
    I was wondering if you knew where I could locate a captcha plugin for my comment
    form? I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having trouble finding one?
    Thanks a lot!

  167. Amazing blog! Do you have any hints for aspiring writers?

    I’m hoping to start my own site soon but I’m a little lost on everything.
    Would you advise starting with a free platform like WordPress or go for a paid option? There are so many options out there that I’m completely confused ..
    Any tips? Many thanks!

  168. Hello, i think that i saw you visited my weblog thus i came to “return the favor”.I am trying to find things to enhance my site!I
    suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!

  169. There are two handling times when vacuum truck operators should be the most observant: when performing the actual job and
    when emptying and cleaning the equipment. There are also some requirements
    to meet, such as enough space and soil. Our highly trained,
    fully qualified team of technicians are committed to excellence.

  170. Thanks for another informative web site. Where else may I am getting that kind of information written in such a
    perfect manner? I’ve a mission that I am just now
    running on, and I have been on the look out for such info.

  171. rencontres says:

    Everyone loves what you guys are usually up too.

    Such clever work and coverage! Keep up the superb works guys I’ve incorporated you guys to my blogroll.

  172. Louis Vuitton Outlet
    Hello would you mind stating which blog platform you’re using?
    I’m going to start my own blog soon but I’m having a hard time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and
    Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design and style
    seems different then most blogs and I’m looking for something unique.

    P.S Apologies for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

  173. Dominik says:

    Hi! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering if
    you knew where I could find a captcha plugin for my comment form?
    I’m using the same blog platform as yours and I’m having problems finding one?
    Thanks a lot!

  174. sex novels says:

    The boy lunged, and they began to dance around the court,
    their swords blurring with each stroke. While dodging bullets, saving the
    world, and having sinfully steamy adventures’ you’ll always have a happy ending.
    If you are bothered that your information may be used for other purposes, then refrain from joining these websites.

  175. Wow, fantastic blog layout! How long have you been blogging for?
    you made blogging look easy. The overall look of your website
    is excellent, as well as the content!

    - cliquez ici
    - cliquez ici
    - cliquez ici
    - cliquez ici
    - cliquez ici
    - cliquez ici

  176. For one thing it can be done in the comfort and privacy of your own home.

    One of the most aggravating parts of doing laundry is getting
    your smaller delicates tangled up or stretched in the washing machine.
    They sell complete vintage collections of popular brands such as Vanity Fair,
    Lorraine, Lucie Ann, and Van Raalte that are well known for vintage slips and sexy nightgowns.

  177. Do you have a spam problem on this site; I also am
    a blogger, and I was wanting to know your situation; many of us have developed some nice methods and
    we are looking to trade solutions with other folks, please shoot me an e-mail if interested.

  178. Hi! Quick question that’s entirely off topic.
    Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My weblog looks weird when viewing from my iphone.
    I’m trying to find a template or plugin that might be able to
    correct this problem. If you have any suggestions, please share.
    Many thanks!

  179. It’s going to be end of mine day, however before end
    I am reading this impressive post to improve my know-how.

  180. Hello I am so grateful I found your web site, I really found you by accident,
    while I was researching on Bing for something else, Anyways I am here
    now and would just like to say thank you for a tremendous post and a all round exciting blog
    (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time
    to browse it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to
    read more, Please do keep up the excellent jo.

  181. Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that
    I’ve really enjoyed browsing your blog posts.

    After all I’ll be subscribing to your feed and I hope you
    write again very soon!

  182. bookmark says:

    Good day! I know this is kinda off topic however ,
    I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links
    or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa?

    My site discusses a lot of the same topics as yours and I believe we
    could greatly benefit from each other. If you might be interested
    feel free to shoot me an email. I look forward to hearing
    from you! Awesome blog by the way!

  183. Funny quotes says:

    Hello Dear, are you genuinely visiting this web site regularly,
    if so then you will without doubt get good know-how.

  184. Hi there! I’m at work surfing around your blog from my new iphone 4!

    Just wanted to say I love reading through your blog and look forward to all your posts!
    Carry on the superb work!

  185. Hi there, I read your blogs like every week.
    Your writing style is witty, keep doing what you’re doing!

  186. Christi says:

    I believe what you said made a bunch of sense.
    But, what about this? suppose you were to create a awesome
    headline? I am not saying your information isn’t solid., but suppose you added a title that makes people want
    more? I mean Catching up on lost time – the Ancestral Health Symposium, food
    reward, palatability, insulin signaling and carbohydrates,
    kettles, pots and other odds and ends (with some philosophy of science
    as a special added attraction). Part I. is kinda vanilla.
    You should glance at Yahoo’s home page and note how they
    create article headlines to get viewers interested. You might add
    a related video or a related picture or two to grab people excited about
    what you’ve got to say. Just my opinion, it would make your posts a little livelier.

  187. Howdy! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group?
    There’s a lot of folks that I think would really enjoy your content.
    Please let me know. Cheers

  188. Hey there! Do you know if they make any
    plugins to assist with Search Engine Optimization? I’m trying to get my blog to rank for some targeted keywords but I’m not seeing very good success.
    If you know of any please share. Appreciate it!

  189. webcam girls says:

    Hi, every time i used to check weblog posts here in the early
    hours in the dawn, for the reason that i enjoy to learn more
    and more.

  190. Wonderful blog! I found it while browsing on Yahoo News.
    Do you have any suggestions on how to get listed in Yahoo News?
    I’ve been trying for a while but I never seem to
    get there! Thanks

  191. Kasey says:

    One of the worst problems a player can face is an injury such
    as a sprained ankle, which can take you out of play for a
    whole season. In less than a blink of an eye, you have made
    the decision to use your crossover to win the game. Basketball drills, however, must be planned in a way that takes the players’ abilities,
    strengths and weaknesses into account.

  192. Hello everyone, it’s my first pay a quik visit at this site, and article is genuinely fruitful designed for me, keep up
    posting these articles.

  193. Steve ay posited palatability bilang isang makabuluhang kadahilanan sa labis na katabaan. Siya ay bigyang-diin ito ay hindi ang isa lamang. درب اتوماتیک

    Ang ikalawang punto, pagkain mababa carb, sa pangkalahatan ay mas mababa sa 50 gramo sa isang araw, at may diabetes, makakuha ako ng timbang.درب اتوماتیک

  194. redsn0w says:

    I like this article! Also, check out my RedSnow site here: http://www.redsn0w.us/

  195. I don’t understand this article… You should check http://www.redsn0w.us/ for more
    details

  196. facebook says:

    Nice response in return of this question with real
    arguments and describing all about that.

  197. I don’t understand this article… You should check http://www.redsn0w.us/ for
    more details

  198. Great article. I’m dealing with some of these issues as well..

  199. І am not certain the ƿlace you are getting your info, howeνer goo topic.
    I must spend a while learning morе or understanding more.
    Ƭhank you for excellent information I used to bbe lߋoking for
    this innfo for my mission.

  200. payday loans says:

    You aare so cool! I do not suppose I have read through
    something like thbis before. So great to find somebody wth some
    genuine thoughts on this subject. Really.. thank you for starting this up.
    This web sie is something that is needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!

  201. Excellent article. I definitely appreciate this website.
    Stick with it!

  202. WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by
    searching for travel

  203. Once do diet pills work without exercise you learn somebody will be ready & waiting.

  204. My partner and I stumbled over here from a different page and thought I may as well check things out.
    I like what I see so i am just following you. Look forward
    to finding out about your web page repeatedly.

  205. Any lender has the power to call in a loan balance in full but in the AMPS system, lenders may be wary
    of the new owners and often call the notes in ASAP.
    Certain words sound better and are more appealing to
    potential buyers. With stable property rates, opportunities for growth and
    a metropolitan population, developers and designers of national and international repute too are setting anchors in Pune.

  206. If there aren’t any holes, start with a layer of
    pebbles before adding the dirt. Hybridization can be used to change the outward appearance of a plant or it can change the inner characteristics of
    a plant to make them easier to grow or more appealing to consumers.
    If you have a vegetable garden that includes growing
    cabbage and tomatoes, you can shred the
    tough stems in the garden shredder so they decompose quicker than normal.

  207. Excellent post! We are linking to this great post on our website.
    Keep uup the good writing.

  208. Unquestionably consider that which you said. Your favourite justification seemed to be at the web the easiest factor to understand of.

    I say to you, I definitely get irked whilst other people consider
    worries that they plainly don’t recognise about.
    You managed to hit the nail upon the top as well as defined out
    the entire thing without having side effect , people could take a signal.
    Will probably be again to get more. Thanks

  209. A good amount of fantastic guidance on this great site, want to have a steam shower
    unit within my bathroom

  210. Fantastic web site, been scouting forever for ideas on the
    very best rattan furnishings for our home and in our garden. This site sincerely helpedgreat blog some great info here

  211. Now without a doubt many treatment can done minus the surgery if we make use of
    the best effective medication for greatest result. You cannot say that the numbers are insignificant
    because the fact that problems do exist is something to be concerned of.

    Emu oil is trans-dermal, which means it penetrates deep into the
    layers to help heal and moisturize.

  212. Wonderful website, previously been scouting forever
    and a day for ideas on the perfect rattan furnishings for
    our home and in our garden. This site seriously helpedgreat blog some great info here

  213. Van says:

    I’ve learn some just right stuff here. Certainly price bookmarking for revisiting.

    I surprise how much attempt you set to create this type of
    magnificent informative website.

  214. edits says:

    Remarkable things here. I am very glad to see your article.
    Thank you so much and I am taking a look ahead to touch you.
    Will you please drop me a e-mail?

  215. In order to the humans to have the rides of ups and downs swiveling chaotic sexual movement,
    they must vibrate separately when it’s in unison. In the
    film, the Nazis are searching for that lost Ark of the Covenant to make their army
    invincible, mainly because it did for the Israelites with the Old Testament,
    and it’s also around archaeologist and adventurer Indiana Jones to find it first.
    You see, Great White sharks usually do not really chew their
    food well and mostly swallow their food whole, their digestion is very slow.

  216. We are a group of volunteers and starting a new scheme inn our community.

    Your website provided us withh valuable info to work on. You’ve dkne an impressive
    job and our entire community will be thankful
    to you.

  217. Niezwykle szałowy post, badawcze teksty zalecam wszystkim lekturę

  218. Alejandrina says:

    Fantastic website heaps of awesome steam shower information here

  219. Today, I went to the beach with my children. I found a sea shell
    and presented it to my 4 year old daughter and said “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.” She put the
    shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched
    her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is entirely off topic but I had
    to tell someone!

  220. 一番好きなのははクリエイティブなもの~私はあったが双puma怠け者の靴~きれいでしょう~医者に行った時に医師目で見つめる私靴を言った、結果は私を2回~ハッハッ病症が下を見てこいつら~が本当に愛してこれらの靴~哪位U条U餅ネギU餅たちを買えることができます~に必ず教えてね~私は探した年~大きく上の面白いだろう1.4.2 Android版アプリクライアントを発表、最適化のユーザー体験、すっきりアップ程度…

  221. bnfdubai.com says:

    Cele mai vizibile și plin de viață de toate culorile , ea generează atracție și emoție .

    As avea nevoie deVMFA a deaccession fiecare lucru e
    ? Oamenii sunt dornici de a răspândi cuvântul despre
    dansatorii minunate și băuturi fabuloase .